Preamble

The House met at Half-past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

DEATH OF A MEMBER

Mr. Speaker: I regret to have to inform the House of the death of David Emlyn Thomas, Esquire, Member for Aberdare, and I desire on behalf of the House to express our sense of the loss we have sustained and our sympathy with the relatives of the honourable Member.

PRIVATE BUSINESS

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL [Lords]

Read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE CORPORATION BILL [Lords]

A verbal Amendment made to the Bill; Bill read the Third time, and passed, with an Amendment.

DERBYSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [Lords]

To be read a Second time Tomorrow.

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (HOLLAND HOUSE) AMENDMENT BILL [Lords]

ORPINGTON URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL [Lords]

Read a Second time, and committed.

PETITION (HYDROGEN BOMB)

Mr. Lawrence Turner: I beg to ask leave to present a humble Petition signed by 1,140 undergraduate members of Oxford University, of both sexes and from most colleges there, for whom at present I have the honour to be spokesman, even if not junior Burgess. The Petition speaks of the hydrogen bomb threat to the existence of our civilisation as we have known it, and all hon. Members of this House will be very much aware of this threat which, indeed, has featured in many of our debates.
The Petition refers also to the moral responsibility of this country in her key position in world politics, and calls for a lead in this matter to avoid the catastrophe of war. The petitioners pray that the Government will make more vigorous efforts in securing disarmament, including the abolition of the hydrogen bomb and such other weapons of mass destruction, with effective international control and inspection.
The Petition concludes with the Prayer:
And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.

Sir H. Williams: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As the essential part of the Petition is addressed to Her Majesty's Government and not to this honourable House, is this Petition in order?

Mr. Speaker: I think the best course would be to let the Petition in the usual way be referred to the Committee, and they will, no doubt, draw the attention of the House to any irregularities.

To lie upon the Table.

Oral Answers to Questions — PENSIONS AND NATIONAL INSURANCE

Employed Widows (Child Supervision Payments)

Mr. Hale: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance why when a widow with young children in receipt of a widow's pension obtains part-time employment, no allowance is permitted to her in estimating her income for the purpose of reassessment of her pension rates in respect of the payment she has to make for the supervision and care of her children.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance (Mr. R. H. Turton): The hon. Member is under a misapprehension. Where such a payment is necessarily incurred in connection with the employment, it is regarded by the statutory authorities as an allowable deduction in calculating earnings.

Mr. Hale: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that I am obliged for that information, and so will be the lady who is under the same misapprehension and who has not had this allowance?

Oral Answers to Questions — Disabled Miners (Clothing Allowance)

Mr. Snow: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance whether the clothing allowance of £5 per annum given by his Department to disabled soldiers who wear a Jones' Saddle, may also be granted to disabled miners who are also obliged to wear this fitting.

Mr. Turton: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply Riven on 3rd May to the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Warbey).

Mr. Snow: Since I have not got that reply with me, may I ask whether the hon. Gentleman is aware that certain members of the industry concerned do not know what the exact provisions are? Is it not a fact that miners are peculiarly susceptible to this sort of injury, which necessitates wearing this equipment?

Mr. Turton: The reply was that there is no provision in the National Insurance

Industrial Injuries Act for such an allowance.

Mr. T. Brown: Is this not a matter that ought to be referred to the National Insurance Advisory Committee, since we are getting so many cases in the mining industry of men who are now compelled to wear this equipment? Ought they not to be treated like men who have the misfortune to be wounded on the field of battle?

Mr. Turton: It has always been held by this Government and their predecessors that clothing allowances are not proper subjects for the industrial injuries insurance scheme.

Oral Answers to Questions — Assistance Grants

Mr. Dodds: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance how many people have applied for National Assistance since 1st January, 1954, up to the latest convenient date; in how many cases grants have been made; and the additional expenditure so far for this year.

Mr. Turton: The National Assistance Board inform me that they received about 1 million applications for National Assistance between 16th December, 1953, and 25th May, 1954. Of these, about 400,000 resulted in the grant of a weekly allowance and about 430,000 in a single payment to meet a temporary situation.
I regret that the figure asked for in the last part of the Question is not available.

Mr. Dodds: Do not these figures suggest that there is a good deal of misery in the country, particularly among the old-age pensioners? Is it not time that the matter was taken rather more seriously than it has been in the past?

Mr. Turton: I think the figures show the very great work which the National Assistance Board is doing in relieving distress among old-age pensioners.

Oral Answers to Questions — Industrial Injuries Fund (Benefits)

Mr. Hale: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance whether he is aware of the distress of many persons in receipt of 100 per cent. Industrial Injury Benefit at 55s. per week; and whether, in view of the fact that the


Industrial Injuries Fund now stands at over £93 million, he is prepared to introduce proposals for an increase of benefit.

Mr. Turton: No, Sir. My right hon. Friend has not bad his attention drawn to any distress among the persons referred to.

Mr. Hale: That is a surprising statement. Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that the income of this Fund—and there is no reason to anticipate additional payments for industrial injuries—was over £40 million, that only just over £20 million was paid out in benefit, and that £3,750,000 was charged for the cost of administration? Is he aware that the Fund is building up year after year? Surely the money is there. Why does he not do something about it instead of arguing about Jones' Saddle, when there is £90 million of money stored up there?

Mr. Turton: The hon. Member's next Question deals with that supplementary question, and, if he wishes, I will answer his supplementary question then.

Mr. Hale: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance whether he is aware that the annual amount of benefit paid from the Industrial Injuries Fund represented in 1951–52 less than 45 per cent., and in 1952–53 less than 53 per cent. of the revenue of the fund; and whether he will reduce the contributions or increase the benefit.

Mr. Turton: I would remind the hon. Member that the Government Actuary pointed out in his First Report on the finances of the Industrial Injuries Scheme, published in 1950, that expenditure on disablement benefits would increase automatically for many years to come and that if the Fund is to be self-supporting when this mature position is reached contribution income must substantially exceed outgoings in the early years.

Mr. Hale: As the Government Actuary's forecast has not proved correct and the comparatively small increase this year compared with last year was made up very largely by amendments in legislation; and, further, as the Parliamentary Secretary now has in the "kitty" 2½ years' contributions, has not the time come for an immediate revision of this matter?

Mr. Turton: In 1951, the percentage of the total revenue taken up in benefit was 42. In 1952, it increased to 53 per cent. That was the time when insurance benefits were put up, while the contributions were increased. Since that date, there has been no Government Actuary's report, but, during that time, this Government has made a great number of improvements in the Industrial Injuries Scheme and has not put up the contributions at all. While the Government Actuary is going into these matters and has yet to give his report, I think it would be inadvisable to come to the conclusion suggested by the hon. Member.

Mr. Simmons: If the anticipated increase in the number of recipients was an argument for not increasing the benefit, would not the decrease in the number of recipients of war pensions be an argument for increasing war pensions?

Mr. Turton: I think the two subjects are entirely dissimilar. I am dealing with an insurance scheme, and I am saying that, in the interests of the whole of the insured population, the Industrial Injuries Scheme should be based on an actuarial basis. War pensions are an entirely different matter, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is not doing his own cause any service by trying to compare the two.

Mr. Gower: In view of the fact that the quinquennial review is being carried out, will my hon. Friend ask the people who are carrying it out to give particular attention to the matters raised by the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale)?

Mr. Turton: I replied earlier to the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) saying that, under Section 59 of the Industrial Injuries Act, the Government Actuary has to review the finances of the scheme and report thereon. This is quite a different review from the review under the National Insurance Scheme, with which I think my hon. Friend is conversant.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL

Industry (Decentralisation)

Sir W. Smithers: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he has considered the information relating to the coal-mining industry, a copy of which has been


sent to him; and what immediate action he proposes to take to arrange for the decentralisation of this industry which is vital to the export trade and upon which many other industries depend.

The Minister of Fuel and Power (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd): As I told the House on 26th October last, the Board has issued a directive which makes it clear that its aim is to delegate authority to its divisions and areas to the fullest extent consistent with its own statutory responsibilities and it has appointed an independent committee to consider whether any more fundamental changes in its organisation are desirable.

Sir W. Smithers: Will the Minister make clear that as we must import about half our food and raw materials the export of coal at world competitive prices is vital to the standard of living net only of the miners, but of the whole country? Will he also remind them that in 1913 we exported 80 million tons of coal and that now we are importing coal? It is quite ridiculous.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Will the Minister also remind his hon. Friend that in 1945 we produced 176 million tons of coal, and will he also send him a copy of the Reid Report, so that the hon. Member may see how much nationalisation has saved this country?

Miss Ward: Will my right hon. Friend tell the right hon. Gentleman opposite how much coal we produced before the war, and, also, that the nation has never yet reached the total output which it produced before the war?

Mr. Blyton: Is the Minister aware that this sniping at the miners by the Government will not help us to get the increased coal production which is needed this year?

Mr. Lloyd: I am sure that the hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Blyton) would not want to convey that impression. There has been no sniping by the Government. There may have been criticism by hon. Members, but, as the whole House knows, there has been nothing of that kind on behalf of Ministers and responsible Members of the Government. The plain fact is that the coal industry is supporting the industry of the whole country at present by the 200 million tons or so of coal

which it produces every year, but, as is known in the industry as well as outside, we desperately need to have an even greater production.

Mr. Noel-Baker: We agree on the importance of increased production, but will the Minister give the Coal Board more miners, or help it to get them? Will he not tell his hon. Friends that production has been increased by 40 million tons since 1945?

Mr. Lloyd: It is the fact that output per man-shift at the face and overall is higher at this time than it has ever been before, but it needs to be increased even more. The Coal Board, whose primary responsibility it is, is now carrying out an energetic campaign to increase manpower in the deficiency districts, particularly the West Midlands and South Yorkshire, and the Board has been much assisted by the Government's special housing policy for miners in these areas, which we introduced soon after we came to office, and which is helping very much.

Coke Prices, Bradford

Mr. George Craddock: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he is aware that purchasers of coke residing in smokeless zones in Bradford were informed by delivery men on 19th May that the following week the price would be increased from 5s. 5d. to 5s. 8d. per cwt.; and what steps he proposes to take to reduce the price for a by-product when good household coal can be purchased for 5s. 4½d. per cwt.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: The North Eastern Gas Board has increased the price of coke following the recent increase in the price of coal, but the coke is still cheaper than the better qualities of house coal. I understand this question was raised originally by a tenants' association in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, North (Mr. W. J. Taylor), and that he has already taken it up with the Chairman of the North Eastern Gas Board.

Mr. Craddock: Does not the Minister think it a little unusual that delivery men should notify customers at the door that the price will be increased by 4d. or about that amount next week? Will he do something to stop that and ensure that a proper advertisement appears in the Press in order to notify customers?

Mr. Lloyd: I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, North took the most helpful action in bringing it to the notice of the Chairman of the Board. Perhaps the hon. Member would add his testimony.

Quality and Prices (Complaints)

Mr. Remnant: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power what procedure a merchant or his customer should follow in seeking redress for wrong quality coal and incorrect pricing; and what recourse is available in the event of the complaint not being admitted.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: If anyone thinks he has been overcharged for the quality of coal supplied, he should complain to his supplier. If he cannot get satisfaction he may report the facts to the local fuel overseer or the regional coal officer of my Ministry.

Mr. Remnant: Would my right hon. Friend be good enough to answer the last part of the Question. What recourse is available in the event of the complaint not being admitted? As I understand the position, the Coal Board is the final arbiter? I should be glad if my right hon. Friend would deny that.

Mr. Lloyd: If the complaint is brought to the attention of the local fuel overseer, and thus to the officers of my Ministry, in the case where there has been a wrongful upgrading of coal my Department will bring a prosecution.

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if, in view of the national concern, he will give an assurance that, in cases where householders have complained to their respective merchants of the presence of stone, bricks and dirt in their house-coal ration and have failed to obtain redress, his Department will initiate action under the Merchandise Marks Act.

Miss Ward: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power how many prosecutions he has initiated under the Merchandise Marks Acts.

Squadron Leader A. E. Cooper: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power, in view of public disquiet at the inability of the National Coal Board to eliminate stone and bricks from household coal,

what action he proposes to take to protect consumers' interests in this matter by proceedings under the Merchandise Marks Act.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: I myself have no power to take proceedings under the Merchandise Marks Acts. There is a recognised procedure whereby a householder may seek redress from his merchant for any stone, bricks or dirt supplied to him, and the merchant may seek redress from the National Coal Board.

Mr. Nabarro: Yes, but as this method of seeking redress is not working, can my right hon. Friend say why the Coal Board should be inviolate under the Merchandise Marks Acts, whereas if a private enterprise undertaking perpetrated similar frauds it would immediately be prosecuted? Why should there be one law for a nationalised undertaking and another for a private enterprise undertaking?

Mrs. Mann: Would the Minister confirm that the Coal Board will admit a claim when a merchant receives 2 per cent. stone and dirt? How can he square that with the fact that merchants will not admit claims of their customers who receive as much as 50 per cent. dirt?

Mr. Lloyd: I cannot confirm the exact percentages, but the fact is that the merchants advise me that the machinery for reclaiming from the Coal Board is working satisfactory from their point of view.

Miss Ward: In view of the fact that the President of the Board of Trade is entitled to prosecute a private enterprise firm under the Merchandise Marks Act, may I ask whether my right hon. Friend will take steps to enable him to prosecute the Coal Board? It is a public scandal that it should be allowed to perpetuate frauds against the consumer.

Mr. Lloyd: There is no difference formally between the position regarding coal and other commodities under the Merchandise Marks Act. I think that my hon. Friend may have in mind some difficulties which have arisen recently in her area. I believe that may be the source of a number of complaints which we have had recently. Everyone knows that the household coal, which has to go into a certain number of grades, has to be supplied from about 1,000 collieries, and there are often changes in the quality


from different coalfields and seams. I believe that the machinery for re-allocating some of that coal into different grades has not been working at a satisfactory speed and I am taking up that matter with the Chairman of the Coal Board.

Mr. Timmons: Is the Minister aware that there is need for an inquiry into the whole question of coal distribution, particularly into costs?

Stocks

Mr. Palmer: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he has yet approved the import of coal to meet the needs of next winter; the approximate amount; and the countries of origin.

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power by how many tons United Kingdom coal consumption in the first 23 weeks of 1954 exceeded consumption for the first 23 weeks of 1953; whether stocks, or exports, or both are being depleted to meet the increased consumption, in view of static production, comparing 1954 with 1953; and what steps he now proposes to take to deal with the coal position.

Mr. Dodds: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power to make a statement giving the present coal stocks and the comparable figures for 1952 as well as the prospects for the coming winter.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: Compared with last year. consumption so far has been greater by 3 million tons and production by 1 million tons. Exports and bunkers have remained the same and total distributed and undistributed stocks are now 1½ million tons less.
For some time the Government have been carefully considering the prospects for next winter, and I have already authorised further imports.

Mr. Palmer: Has the Minister information that this is likely to meet all the contingencies next winter, particularly in a spell of bad weather?

Mr. Lloyd: That is their purpose.

Mr. Nabarro: Has the attention of my right hon. Friend been drawn to the statement recently made by Mr. Arthur Horner, General Secretary of the National Union of Mineworkers, to the effect that the coal situation now is the most dangerous since 1946? Can my right hon.

Friend assure the House that his measures in importing additional coal will meet the situation without cutting down still further our vital exports of coal?

Mr. Lloyd: The House will remember that earlier in the year the National Union of Mineworkers assured the Coal Board that it would regard a 2½ per cent. increase of output this year as the minimum standard for which to aim. So far, there has not been any increase in output, save for the extra 1 million tons which results from there being no Coronation special holiday this year. Recently, the miners' leaders reaffirmed their determination to ask for what they had suggested earlier in the year, and they have been making helpful speeches in the coalfields to help in that matter. This was one of those speeches.

Mr. Dodds: The Minister said he had authorised the importation of coal. Will he tell the House how much can be imported? Is there a ceiling or an open licence?

Mr. Lloyd: No, there is not an open licence. I should not wish to inform the House about the quantity or source of supply as I wish to give the Coal Board the best commercial opportunities to get the coal as cheaply as possible.

Mr. Nabarro: Is it not a fact that last February, when a substantial increase in miners' wages was negotiated, it was on the express understanding that the cost of the increase would be compensated for by a 2½ per cent. increase in production? As that increase has not yet materialised, what further action does the Coal Board now propose to take?

Mr. Hamilton: As it is a Government decision to increase the imports of coal, will the Government foot the bill, or the Coal Board?

Mr. Lloyd: No, as in all recent cases of importation, of which, unhappily, there have had to be many examples since the war, we must face the fact that it is the consumer who foots the bill.

Mr. P. Roberts: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he is aware that domestic consumers are unable to obtain grades 1, 2 and 3 house coal before the increase in price in June, owing to the fact that supplies are not


made available by the National Coal Board; and the present stocks of these grades of house coal in the country at the latest convenient date.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: I can assure my hon. Friend that the Board is not withholding supplies of the better grades of coal it needs to dispose of its whole available production in order to meet weekly allocations to the merchants. Total stocks in merchants' yards at 5th June were 408,500 tons, but quantities of the different grades are not separately recorded.

Mr. Roberts: Does my right hon. Friend consider that the very extensive and expensive advertising which took place for this campaign in the middle of June was really justified in view of the fact that the Coal Board has, apparently, not got the coal to deliver?

Mr. Lloyd: The Board has not got as much coal of the best quality as the public want. The public naturally, in many cases, want the better qualities, even more so in summer, when they require large quantities for stocking up.

Technical Efficiency (Savings)

Mr. Palmer: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power the total saving in coal consumed by the nationalised electricity and gas industries, due to improved technical efficiency, since vesting date in each case.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: Approximately 12 and 2 million tons respectively.

Mr. Palmer: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that this saving is a tremendous tribute to the soundness of the policy of the nationalisation of those industries?

Mr. Lloyd: No, Sir. I think that that would not really be the case because, after all, even more sensational savings of fuel were made under private enterprise between the wars.

Allocation and Price Control

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power what steps he has taken since publication of the Ridley Report in September, 1952, to ascertain the annual tonnage of house-coal supplies frustrated by the rationing scheme, and thus revise the Ridley estimate of 4 million tons of frustrated supplies

annually; whether he is aware that this figure has now evaporated on account of eight price increases of house coal since September, 1952, aggregating more than 25s. per ton average; and whether he will now end house-coal rationing, while retaining price control.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: Taking all factors into account, I would not at present alter the estimate of some 3 to 4 million tons that I gave my hon. Friend on 54th April.

Mr. Nabarro: Is it not a fact that house coal has risen in price on no fewer than 19 occasions since nationalisation, and is now nearly double the price it was in 1947? As house coal is rationing itself by price, is it really necessary to continue this extensive and cumbrous machinery of allocation for house coal?

Mr. Lloyd: I need hardly say that I, and I am sure the House as a whole, would be only too glad if we could get rid of it, but while my hon. Friend has mentioned certain factors, he will, I am sure, also give due weight to the fact that wider this Government the average income of people is rising and that there has been a very large increase in the housing programme, and consequently a very large increase in the demand for coal.

Mr. Shinwell: In relation to the increase in the price of coal on numerous occasions since the advent of nationalisation, can the Minister say how many times the price of coal has risen since the advent of private enterprise in the mining industry?

Delivery Notes

Mrs. Mann: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power (1) if he will take steps to see that all delivery lorries selling 1 cwt. or less than 2 cwt. bear a notice board indicating the grade and price of coal;
(2) if he will now amend his Regulations so that delivery slips of coal for quantities over 2 cwt. must bear the amount, grade and price.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: Adoption of these suggestions would involve extra costs and there may be other practical difficulties, but I will consider both suggestions in consultation with the trade organisations concerned.

Mrs. Mann: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. Hamilton) the Minister said:
Retail merchants are already required to supply delivery notes specifying the price and the grade of the coal when deliveries exceed two owt."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th May, 1954; Vol. 5127, c. 1692.]
Is he aware that we are finding that that is not so? These specimens of delivery notes which I hold in my hand contain no reference whatever either to grade or to price; they are merely weight delivery notes.

Mr. Lloyd: If the hon. Lady will let me have the delivery notes I will have them examined.

Calorific Value

Miss Ward: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he will assess the calorific value of coal for domestic consumption in the 12 months 1953–54 compared with 1952–53.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: I regret that these figures are not available.

Miss Ward: Will my right hon. Friend kindly see that they are made available? May I ask why it has taken so long—indeed, so long that we have had, on the North-East coast, a strike of coal merchants against the quality of coal delivered to them—for him to examine the running of this very inefficient machine?

Mr. Lloyd: The matter to which my hon. Friend refers is the responsibility of the Coal Board. As I said earlier, I have inquired into it, and I hope it will be avoided and that in future there will be more rapid working of the machinery for altering the grading of coal.

Supplies, Amersham

Mr. R. Bell: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he will accelerate the supply of large house coal to the Amersham area of Buckinghamshire in order that householders may be enabled to obtain summer delivery of their supplies.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: I will make inquiries and will write to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Bell: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the lower summer prices

are payable for orders placed before 1st June, even though delivery may not have been before that time?

Mr. Lloyd: There is a Question about that later on the Order Paper.

Prices (Discount Benefits)

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether, in cases where household coal was ordered before 12th June but not delivered by that date, the purchaser is entitled, under his regulations, to the discount of 10s. per ton.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: No, but there are arrangements operated by the trade in the South of England under which, subject to certain conditions, merchants are prepared to meet orders placed between 3rd May and 31st August at the price ruling at the date of order.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that answer will be received with some satisfaction? Is he further aware that a large number of merchants are telling people who order coal that they will not get the benefit of this discount, which was applicable until 12th June? Will he notify the coal merchants that this discount is payable if the coal was ordered in the time specified and that it will not be lost because the coal was not delivered in time?

Mr. Lloyd: No, Sir, because, as I pointed out, this is an arrangement which was brought about by the trade.

Oral Answers to Questions — FUEL AND POWER

Fuel Advisory Company

Mr. Palmer: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if the transfer of his Department's fuel efficiency service to the new Fuel Advisory Company is now completed; and what arrangements he has made to check future progress by the company in promoting the more efficient utilisation of fuel in industry.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: Yes, Sir. An officer of my Department has been appointed an observer and both at administrative and technical levels we are in close touch with the service.

Mr. Palmer: In view of the importance to the country of saving coal, would


the Minister tell us whether the House will from time to time be kept informed of the progress made by this company, especially as he knows that these arrangements are very experimental, and some of us doubt their efficiency altogether?

Mr. Lloyd: Yes, I can tell the House that since the new service has been set up there has been an increase in the flow of inquiries from industry.

Departmental Chief Scientist Officer (Appointment)

Mr. Shinwell: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether it is proposed to fill the vacancy to be caused by the resignation of the Chief Scientific Officer to his Department; and at what salary.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: Yes, Sir £3,250 per annum.

Mr. Shinwell: In view of the scientific knowledge and equipment available to the Coal Board, is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that it is necessary to continue this office?

Mr. Lloyd: I think it is very important, because the scientific work of the Chief Scientist embraces matters far outside the field of the Coal Board itself. It relates, also, to the utilisation of coal.

Mr. Nabarro: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that since this appointment was made in 1946 it has proved extremely valuable over the whole field of scientific research on matters relating to fuel and power? Would he repudiate the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman that the work concerns only coal and indicate that it relates to coal gas, electricity, gas turbines and much other scientific equipment?

Mr. Shinwell: Does the Minister understand that when it comes to a question of gas I pay homage to the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro)?

Oral Answers to Questions — ISRAEL-JORDAN FRONTIER (SECURITY COUNCIL DISCUSSION)

Mr. E. Johnson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what progress has been made in the discussions at the Security Council in regard to

Israel-Jordan frontier tension: and if he will make a statement.

The Minister of State (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd): The Security Council debate on this matter was adjourned on 12th May. There is nothing I can usefully say about this matter at the present time, except to deny the reports that Her Majesty's Government have proposed the replacement of General Bennike.

Mr. Johnson: In view of the provision of Article 2 of our 1948 Treaty with Transjordan, will my right hon. and learned Friend try to persuade that Govemnment to make full use of the machinery of the United Nations to settle their dispute with Israel?

Mr. Lloyd: I think it would be a very good thing if both sides would make full use of the existing machinery.

Mr. H. Morrison: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that Israel, especially in relation to Jordan, is most anxious to sit down with the Arabs to settle their dispute? In view of the fact that hostilities were brought to an end partly at our request and at the request of the United Nations, is not there an obligation upon the United Nations, including ourselves, the United States and France, to persuade the Arabs to sit down round the table to settle the dispute: especially having regard to the fact that the so-called armistice has been going on for between five and six years?

Mr. Lloyd: Frankly I think that the difficulty about this problem is that the more that is said in public about it the more difficult it is to get the two sides together. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that we are seeking to do our best.

Mr. Morrison: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that very little has been said in public about this so far as this House is concerned, and that the so-called armistice has been going on for five or six years? In these somewhat unprecedented conditions, is it not time that a peace was made? Shall we do any good by evading the issue?

Mr. Lloyd: We are trying to reduce the temperature and to get both sides into a condition where progress could be made. If I am asked to comment on the activities of one side with which I may not


agree, in fairness I have to point out where I think that the other side have not been behaving as they should. I do not think that the public interest is advanced by that course of action.

Oral Answers to Questions — BURAIMI OASIS (SITUATION)

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a further statement on the situation at the Buraimi Oasis.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: Her Majesty's Government still think that arbitration is the best method of settling the Buraimi question. The gap between the Saudi Government and ourselves regarding the terms on which the whole dispute may be submitted to arbitration is not very wide; and my right hon. Friend hopes very shortly to put to the Saudi Government further proposals which we hope will result in closing it altogether.

Oral Answers to Questions — ATLANTIC CHARTER (ARTICLES 4 AND 5)

Sir W. Smithers: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he and his representatives at international conferences will continue to press for the necessity of putting into operation articles 4 and 5 of the Atlantic Charter.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: Yes, Sir.

Sir W. Smithers: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware of the importance of impressing upon Members of our own Government, and the representatives of all countries, the importance of the immediate application of Articles 4 and 5 of the Atlantic Charter, giving to all peoples free access to the goods of all the world? If goods cannot cross frontiers, armies will. The application of these Articles would be a most important contribution to world peace.

Mr. Lloyd: The answer to that question is the same as to the principal Question—"Yes, Sir."

Oral Answers to Questions — ALBANIA (BRITISH CLAIM)

Mr. T. Reid: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what action he now proposes to take to recover the compensation of about £800,000 awarded by

the International Court for the murder of British sailors in the Corfu Channel, in view of the fact that the Italian claim on the £800,000 worth of Albanian gold was held to be outside the jurisdiction of the court unless the Albanian Government agreed to the hearing.

Mr. Ernest Davies: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what action he proposes to take to recover the compensation awarded against Albania in the Corfu Channel incident, in view of the decision of the International Court of Justice that it was not competent to adjudicate on Italy's claim in the Albania gold case.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: We shall now have to consider the consequences of the judgment of the International Court of Justice, in collaboration with the French and United States Governments.

Oral Answers to Questions — SUDAN DEFENCE FORCE (BRITISH OFFICERS)

Mr. Amery: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a statement on the decision of the Sudan Government to terminate the contracts of the British officers serving with the Sudan Defence Force.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: Yes, Sir. In the Agreement of 12th February, 1953, it was agreed that the Sudanisation of the Sudan Defence Force should be completed. That was one of the tasks of the Sudanisation Committee set up by that Agreement. The Committee recommended last March that the Sudan Defence Force should be Sudanised as soon as possible. The Sudanese Council of Ministers endorsed this recommendation and the Governor-General gave his assent in April.
It is in pursuance of this decision that the Sudanese Minister of Defence has now given three months' notice, dating from 8th June of the termination of the services of the British officers in the Sudan Defence Force. This is the last stage in a process which has been going on for a considerable time. There are now only about 24 officers, as I understand, affected by this decision, all of them seconded from the British Army.
Major-General Scoones, the Kaid, Commanding Officer of the Sudan Defence Force, will be handing over his


command to Lewa Ahmed Pasha Mohamed, a Sudanese officer with a distinguished record who is at present Deputy Kaid. He was one of the Sudanese representatives who attended the Coronation of Her Majesty the Queen last year.
I am sure that all Members will join with me in sending to the Kaid designate and to all officers and men of the Sudan Defence force our good wishes. There are many in this country who have happy memories of service during the last war either in the Sudan Defence Force or alongside it in the field. We remember with gratitude that the Sudanese Defence Force fought gallantly for the Allied cause in Ethiopia and in the Western desert. They were wholeheartedly with us from the beginning to the end, in bad times as well as good. The Sudanese people are with good reason proud of the record of this Force.
At the same time, I should like to pay a warm tribute to the band of British officers whose devoted service has done so much to build up this Sudanese National Army since it was established as a separate force 30 years ago.

Mr. Amery: While wholly endorsing my right hon. and learned Friend's valedictory remarks to the officers of the Sudan Defence Force, may I ask whether he is satisfied that this decision will not weaken the Governor's power to maintain law and order in the event of a disturbance, or his having to deal with a situation of emergency during the period of transition?

Mr. Lloyd: The Sudan Defence Force has a fine corps of Sudanese officers to draw from and I have no reason to believe that they will not obey any orders that they may be given.

Major McCallum: Does the Sudanisation of the Sudan Defence Force mean the posting of Egyptian officers to the Sudan again?

Mr. Lloyd: No, under no circumstances.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITAIN AND CHINA (DIPLOMATIC MISSIONS)

Mr. Donnelly: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is yet in a position to make a statement

regarding the date on which the exchange of diplomatic missions between Her Majesty's Government and the People's Government of China becomes operative.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: No, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMANY (DEFENCE ORGANISATION)

Mr. Shinwell: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs under what conditions the West German Government is entitled to create a defence organisation; how far the consent of the occupying Powers is required; and how far action has already been taken by the German Government.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: Pending the entry into force of the Bonn Conventions and the European Defence Community Treaty, the Occupation Statute for Germany reserves to the occupying Powers all matters concerned with "disarmament and demilitarisation." The West German Government cannot, therefore, at present create a defence organisation without the consent of the occupying Powers.
In order to enable the German Federal Government to prepare for the entry into force of the European Defence Community Treaty the occupying Powers have agreed to German representation on the European Defence Community Interim Committee and to the Federal Government undertaking preliminary defence plans and studies.

Mr. Shinwell: I am obliged to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for that reply, but can he say whether any preliminary measures have been taken by the Bonn Government in preparation for the, defence organisation? Have they not created a Ministry of Defence and are they not raising forces in readiness either for entry into E.D.C. or N.A.T.O.?

Mr. Lloyd: The only force that has been raised is the frontier police force, armed with light weapons and amounting to 10,000 men, which was authorised by the occupying Powers in 1951. Apart from that, I understand that the Federal Government are keeping within the terms of the authorisation by undertaking preliminary defence plans and studies.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Would my right hon. and learned Friend consider laying a White Paper which would describe how far West Germany is now rearming in the sense of police requirements and frontier troops?

Mr. Lloyd: I will consider that suggestion. It might be a very good thing if the House could see exactly the difference between frontier forces in East Germany and in West Germany.

Mr. Shinwell: Is the Minister aware that it would be a very good thing if we had a White Paper and that I hope he will consider that suggestion? If he publishes one, will he give all the available information on the preliminary steps that some believe have now been taken in preparation for a defence organisation?

Mr. Lloyd: I will certainly consider that. It would be well if the House bad the fullest information.

Mr. H. Morrison: In view of what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said in answer to the previous supplementary question, if he does publish a White Paper will he produce fuller information about the greater degree, the substantial degree, of rearmament that has taken place in Eastern Germany?

Mr. Lloyd: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: And see that the figures are accurate?

Oral Answers to Questions — SAUDI ARABIA (SHIPPING AGREEMENT)

Mr. Hoy: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what action he has taken to protect British interests against the Agreement reached between Mr. Aristotle Onassis and Saudi Arabia.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: An Arabic text of the Agreement was published in Jedda on 7th June. The terms of the Agreement are now being carefully studied.

Mr. Hoy: Is the Minister aware that that does not add very much to the answer that he gave to a similar Question a month ago? Does the Agreement prohibit or show flag discrimination against Great Britain which will prevent British tankers carrying oil and might

involve us in the loss of approximately £10 million in invisible exports?

Mr. Lloyd: The hon. Member says that this is the same answer as was given a month ago, but since then the Agreement has been published and we have been able to get it translated, although we have not yet given it the fullest study that it deserves. There are certainly some disquieting features about the Agreement and the attention of the Saudi Arabian Government has already been drawn to some of these by Her Majesty's representative.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH SHIPS (HIGH SEAS SEARCH)

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what representations have been received from the United States Government with regard to the searching of British ships on the high seas.

Mr. Callaghan: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make clear in reply to the United States of America that it is for the British Government, and no one else, to control movements of British ships on the high seas.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: Her Majesty's Ambassador in Washington was asked by the United States Government whether, in the event of a British ship being suspected of carrying arms to Guatemala, and if time and circumstances did not permit the British authorities to take the necessary action to prevent the arms reaching Guatemala, Her Majesty's Government would authorise the United States Navy to intercept and detain the vessel.
The position of Her Majesty's Government in this matter has been made quite clear in the statement issued on 18th June, the full text of which I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT. We cannot recognise the power of other countries to interfere with British shipping on the high seas in time of peace except in accordance with recognised provisions of international law.

Mr. Henderson: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman make it clear that the actions of successive British Governments in refusing to license the export


of armaments to Guatemala has not been dictated by the political complexion of the Government of that country, but has been taken purely in defence of British interests?

Mr. Lloyd: I think it has been quite clear that the decision not to export arms to Guatemala in particular has been borne out by events.

Mr. Callaghan: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the hostility that this proposal aroused is enhanced by the complaint that American citizens are apparently shipping arms? Will he not serve the cause of world peace best if he notifies the American Government that if they stop shipping arms—if this complaint is well founded—we may have a peaceful settlement in that area?

Mr. Lloyd: I think that the position of Her Majesty's Government has been properly stated in the statement issued and in the answer that I have given.

Mr. Bing: Would the Minister not agree that now that it appears that Guatemala is subject to attack from another State, the Government ought to reconsider their ban on the supply of arms?

Mr. Lloyd: I do not think it is proved that Guatemala is the subject of attack from another State.

Sir H. Williams: Is it not a fact that in the past the British Government have often asserted the right to stop gunrunning by ships not flying the British flag?

Mr. Lloyd: My hon. Friend will notice that in the answer which I gave I used the words "except in accordance with recognised provisions of international law."

Mr. Hale: Is there no limitation on the export of arms to Nicaragua and Honduras? If not, is not this a pure discrimination because of the land nationalisation proposals which have taken place and which happen to be very necessary in this backward Republic?

Mr. Lloyd: I should like to have notice about the question of the export of arms to Nicaragua and Honduras. If it is a question of attributing these matters to

the land nationalisation policy in Guatemala, I would point out that the ban began in 1948.

Mr. Foot: If the right hon. and learned Gentleman is able to tell the House that the ban on the shipment of arms to Guatemala has taken place since 1948. cannot he also tell the House whether there was a similar ban on the shipment of arms to Nicaragua, Honduras and other States in Latin-America?

Mr. Lloyd: The Question on the Order Paper relates to representations received from the United States Government with regard to the searching of British ships on the high seas. If the hon. Gentleman will put down a Question on the point which he has raised, I will certainly try to answer it.

Following is the statement:

Her Majesty's Government strongly disapprove of the sale of arms to Guatemala and for several years have been refusing licences for the export of any arms to that country. We will, of course, continue this refusal.

In fact, very few British ships sail to Guatemalan ports, but the British Government will co-operate to the fullest extent possible under British and international law in seeking to prevent British ships from carrying arms to Guatemala.

There is no general power of search on the high seas in peace-time. The British Government, however, have certain powers under Defence Regulations and otherwise to detain or requisition in certain circumstances. The Commander-in-Chief, West Indies, is being instructed to take appropriate action where practicable if the carriage of arms by British ships should he suspected.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF FOOD

Sausages (Meat Content)

Mr. Dodds: asked the Minister of Food if he will make a statement following his consultations with the trade on the problem of sausage content: and what proposals he has to make for protecting the public in this respect.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Dr. Charles Hill): I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. J. Rodgers) on 15th June.

Mr. Dodds: Since I do not know what that answer was, might I ask the hon. Gentleman whether it is a fact that representatives of the proprietary brands of


sausages, the Grocers' Federation and the Co-operative movement came down firmly in favour of the reimposition of the meat content standard as it used to be?

Dr. Hill: Two views on the subject were expressed, and in respect of one of those views I have no reason to dissent from what the hon. Member has said, but I suggest that he studies the statement in full.

Milk (Price)

Sir W. Smithers: asked the Minister of Food what persons or organisations outside his Department he consulted before fixing the retail price of milk; the present price; and if he will take off all controls and allow the law of supply and demand to operate freely.

Dr. Hill: The present maximum price of milk is 6d. per pint. The views of the trade were well known, and no special consultation was necessary when this price was fixed. With so large a consumer subsidy involved price controls are necessary.

Sir W. Smithers: Does not the Minister know, and will he not proclaim, that an attempt to overcome the law of supply and demand must end in disaster? Will he ensure that his policy does not attempt the impossible, and will he tell the trade so?

Dr. Hill: I will not comment on my hon. Friend's generalities, but the removal of price control would result in a substantial increase in the price of milk.

Mr. T. Williams: Is it not true that the Treasury fixes the price of milk?

Mr. Willey: asked the Minister of Food whether he will revoke the Milk (Great Britain) Order, 1954, in order to avoid an increase in the price of milk on 1st August.

Dr. Hill: No, Sir.

Mr. Willey: Will the hon. Gentleman look at this matter again and consult the Milk Marketing Board about it, because it has expressed its view? Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that it would create universal satisfaction if the Government refrained from increasing the price of milk in August?

Dr. Hill: I am aware of the views of the Chairman of the Milk Marketing

Board, but I would remind the hon. Gentleman that not to proceed with the August change to 7d. per pint would result in an increase in the subsidy from the present level of £90 million per year to £120 million.

Mr. Osborne: What is the average cost of production per pint throughout the year of the non-welfare milk, which my hon. Friend said is sold at 6d. per pint?

Dr. Hill: If my hon. Friend will put a Question on the Order Paper, I will give him the details.

Eggs (Subsidy)

Mr. Willey: asked the Minister of Food the current weekly rate of the subsidy on eggs for the latest available date; and the amount of the subsidy so far incurred during the present financial year.

Dr. Hill: For the week ended 19th June about £600,000: for the financial year to date £10.5 million.

Re-Commissioned Mills (Future)

Mr. Willey: asked the Minister of Food whether he will make a statement on the future of Re-Commissioned Mills Limited.

Dr. Hill: In the crop year 1954–55, Re-Commissioned Mills Ltd will provide a drying and storage service for wheat and coarse grain at commercial rates. The long-term policy is still being considered.

Mr. Willey: In view of the importance of this service, will the Parliamentary Secretary expedite consideration of the long-term policy?

Dr. Hill: I realise the importance of an early decision, but many interests are involved and consultations are still proceeding.

Imported Butter (Prices)

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: asked the Minister of Food what prices he has agreed to pay for butter under existing bulk-purchase agreements with New Zealand, Australia and Denmark, respectively.

Dr. Hill: Three hundred and twenty-six shillings, 326s., and 345s. per cwt. f.o.b. respectively for the contract year 1953–54.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Will the Minister give the figures in shillings per lb., so that the housewives know what he is talking about. Will he also explain what is happening to the difference between the price that he is paying and the very much higher price—about 4s. per lb.—which the housewives have to pay?

Dr. Hill: My right hon. and gallant Friend has made clear the policy of following the market price. If that were not done, considerable profits might go to people who do not deserve them.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: They are getting 6d. per lb. now.

Oral Answers to Questions — GERM WAR TESTS (BAHAMAS)

Mr. Donnelly: asked the Minister of Supply whether he will make a statement regarding the germ war tests in which H.M.S. "Lomond" has taken part.

The Minister of Supply (Mr. Duncan Sandys): Yes, Sir. The trials have gone off satisfactorily. The weather has been excellent and the arrangements worked smoothly. Valuable information has been obtained. The activities planned for this season are now concluded and the party are due to arrive back shortly.

Mr. Donnelly: I thank the right hon. Gentleman most warmly for that answer, but can he possibly give us some information to the effect that our money has been well spent?

Mr. Sandys: I do not think that I should add anything to the full statement which I have already made.

Mr. Hastings: Is the growth of the germs affected by the weather?

Mr. Emrys Hughes: As the various factors were also available off the Isle of Wight, why were not the experiments conducted off the Isle of Wight instead of off the Bahamas?

Mr. Sandys: Perhaps the hon. Member would suggest that we should have conducted the experiments off the coast of Ayrshire.

Oral Answers to Questions — LEGAL AID AND ADVICE (COUNTY COURT CASES)

Mr. Blenkinsop: asked the Attorney-General whether he is yet in a position to make a statement regarding the implementation of the Legal Aid and Advice Act, in view of the need to provide legal assistance for tenants who wish to contest claims for increased rent in the county courts.

The Attorney-General (Sir Lionel Heald): No, Sir.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Is not the Attorney-General aware of the importance of ensuring that people are able to take to the county court cases in relation to the rent increases which will be coming into force in a month or two's time? Cannot he carry out the undertaking which has been given that this matter will be capable of being proceeded with in the county court?

The Attorney-General: I am fully aware of the importance of the matter. The undertaking which was given was that it would be dealt with as soon as possible.

Mr. E. Fletcher: The Attorney-General keeps on saying that this is being considered. Is it not now a most urgent matter, in view of the Landlord and Tenant Bill, that the legal aid scheme should be extended to cover this matter? May we know when we are to have a statement about it?

The Attorney-General: If I knew when it was to be dealt with I should tell the hon. Member.

Oral Answers to Questions — INNKEEPERS' LIABILITY (REPORT)

Mr. R. Bell: asked the Attorney-General whether Her Majesty's Government has now considered the Report of the Law Reform Committee upon the law relating to the liability of innkeepers; and when he proposes to introduce a Bill to carry out the proposals contained in it.

The Attorney-General: The Government have not yet had an opportunity of considering this Report.

Mr. Bell: Can my right hon. and learned Friend tell me when consideration of the Report is likely to be concluded?

The Attorney-General: My hon. Friend may not be aware that the Report was made only on 20th May.

Mr. Bing: When the right hon. and learned Gentleman is looking into the liability of innkeepers, will he also consider their obligations to the public?

Oral Answers to Questions — U.S.S.R. MANGANESE (IMPORTS)

Mr. Harold Davies: asked the President of the Board of Trade the quantity and value of manganese imported from the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics in the past two years.

The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. Heathcoat Amory): In the 12 months, June, 1953, to May, 1954, 93,000 tons of manganese ore valued at £1,688,000 were imported from the Soviet Union. There were no imports from the Soviet Union in the previous 12 months.

Mr. Davies: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that reply, but does he not think that the time has come for a complete revision of the list of strategic goods the export of which to Eastern Europe and China is banned? Is he not aware that manganese is one of the most strategic materials that we could import?

Mr. Amory: The hon. Gentleman will know that manganese ore is not on our embargo list, and he will also know that in consultation with other co-operating countries, we are engaged in negotiations with a view to substantially shortening the present list of embargoed items.

Oral Answers to Questions — PEDESTRIAN CROSSING REGULATIONS

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what steps he has taken to acquaint the public and with the new pedestrian-crossings Regulations which come into effect on 1st July next.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. Hugh Molson): We have arranged for special advertisements to appear in the national and provincial newspapers at the beginning of July; I am planning to make a short broadcast on the evening of 30th June; and arrangements have been made for a short film to be shown on television. In addition, leaflets explaining the regulations have been produced by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents and are being given a wide circulation.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Will the Parliamentary Secretary see that all his advertising publicity is completed before the operative date, namely, 1st July, because, as he well knows, people are in a state of confusion about the entire situation?

Mr. Molson: Yes, Sir, we are beginning it before the operative date and, if necessary, we shall continue it afterwards.

GUATEMALA (SITUATION)

Mr. Attlee: I desire to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs—whose return to the House after his labours in Geneva we all welcome—a Question of which I have given him Private Notice, whether he has any statement to make about the situation in Guatemala.

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Anthony Eden): I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman and to the House.
The situation in Guatemala is confused. Her Majesty's Chargé d'Affaires at Guatemala has informed us that the airport at Guatemala City was bombed and machine gunned by a single aircraft on 18th June. There have also been reports of attacks by two aircraft on the National Palace on the same day. Her Majesty's Chargé d'Affaires was assured by the Guatemalan Minister for Foreign Affairs on 19th June that internal order would be maintained, and that the Guatemalan authorities would do everything in their power to protect British lives and property.
As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, the Security Council considered this matter on 20th June. The United Kingdom delegate made it clear that in his


view the Security Council could not remain indifferent to this situation. Basing himself on Chapter 8 of the United Nations Charter, he supported the view of the two Latin American members of the Council that the Organisation of American States should deal with the matter. This the Soviet representative alone of all the members of the Council did not accept.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: And quite right, too.

Mr. Eden: He exercised his veto.
After discussion a resolution was, however, passed calling for the immediate termination of any action likely to cause bloodshed and requesting all members of the United Nations to abstain in the spirit of the Charter from giving assistance to any such action.

Mr. Attlee: Have we any idea of the origin of these aircraft?

Mr. Eden: No, I cannot say that I have. I have only read the reports which have seen in the Press. Two of them ate said to have been brought down in Mexico.

Mr. Attlee: Have we any clear idea of what is happening in Guatemala, whether this is some kind of a civil war or whether it is aggression by neighbouring States, or what is at the back of it?

Mr. Eden: I should be rather reluctant to pronounce upon it at this stage. It seems likely that a military clash will occur shortly. So far as we have been able to ascertain, the military forces on both sides are likely to be about equal in number—6,000 on the one and 5,000 on the other—but these are only reports and I would not like the House to take them as certain. I think we must reserve judgment, on the whole, in a matter of this kind until we have a little more information.

Captain Duncan: Will my right hon. Friend take all necessary steps to safeguard British lives and property?

Mr. Eden: Her Majesty's Chargé d'Affaires has already raised the matter with the Guatemalan Foreign Secretary and we will do what we can.

Mr. J. Hynd: Since Guatemala is a member of the United Nations, and this is evidently an invasion of the territory of

a member of the United Nations, can the Foreign Secretary tell us why the British Government did not support a United Nations inquiry into the situation?

Mr. Eden: I thought that the action taken by our representative was absolutely correct. The Security Council could not divest itself of responsibility and it has not done so. If the Soviet veto had not been exercised, the action proposed would still have been taken under the authority of the Security Council and a report back would have had to be made to the Security Council.

Mr. Foot: Is it not a fact from all the accounts in the newspapers—which, at any rate, add something to the meagre account given by the Foreign Secretary—that the invasion is claimed to have taken place by forces who have had their spokesmen in Honduras? Therefore, would it not be proper for the British Government either directly to make representations to the Honduras Government to refrain from supporting such action or to propose that such representations should he made to the Honduras Government through the United Nations?

Mr. Eden: I do not think it would be proper, or a good habit for us to get into, to make representations based on newspaper reports of somewhat doubtful authenticity. So far as the situation is known, I think that the action has been perfectly correct so far. We shall have to see how it develops. The United Nations is clearly interested in the matter and the Security Council must remain seized of it. As far as our information goes, at any rate the leader of this incursion into Guatemala is himself a Guatemalan and many, if not all—I cannot tell in detail—of those invading the country are Guatemalan exiles. Something of this kind is not unique in Central American history.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Are the Government going to propose methods by which the undertakings of members of the United Nations not to give military assistance to anybody in this fight can be made effective?

Mr. Eden: That was exactly the terms of the resolution passed only yesterday by the Security Council. As to giving effect to those undertakings, that will have to be gone into carefully.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Speakerrose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are to have a foreign affairs debate on Wednesday and cannot go on with this now.

PRIVILEGE (NEWSPAPER REPORT)

Sir H. Williams: Mr. Speaker, I wish to raise a question of privilege. In today's "Daily Mail" there is a report of a speech by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell). I will read the report if I may:
Mr. Emanuel Shinwell, Socialist M.P. for Easington, predicted an election at the end of the year when he spoke at Blaydon-on-Tyne, Durham, Labour Party gala. He said it would be an opportunity to 'get rid of the crazy Tories—the wretches, the rascals, the rapscallions'.
As the reference was to a General Election, and as a General Election, by implication, can only get rid of these people as a result of the Election, the reference was clearly to right hon. and hon. Members on this side of the House. I would suggest that to refer to right hon. and hon. Members in those terms in a gross breach of the Privilege of this House.

Copy of newspaper handed in.

Mr. Speaker: I have had no notice of this, but I suppose the hon. Baronet is asking me whether I consider this to be

a prima facie case of breach of Privilege. It is not for me to say whether it is or is not a breach of Privilege, that is for the House. My view of it is that hard words used against persons and parties are dealt with, if necessary, by the law of defamation, and it is only where the House as a whole is affected by the spoken word that, to my mind, a question of Privilege arises. In this case, it seems to me that these offensive epithets are selective in their application. Therefore, of the words complained of, I could not really find a prima facie case of breach of Privilege. If the hon. Baronet wishes to proceed further with the matter, he should put down a Motion for the consideration of the House.

Mr. Woodburn: Is it not clear, Sir, that most hon. Gentlemen opposite never dreamed that those words applied to them? Obviously, therefore, some people must have thought that they applied to them and others did not.

Mr. Speaker: I have dealt with the matter. I should be very sorry to think that any hon. Member thought that those words in their entirety applied to him.

Miss Ward: Is it not a good thing, Mr. Speaker, occasionally to let the Opposition have their little bit of fun?

Mr. Speaker: I would not myself controvert that.

TELEVISION BILL (ALLOCATION OF TIME)

Second Report [17th June] of the Business Committee to be considered forthwith.—[Mr. Crookshank.]

Considered accordingly.

Question, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Report," put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 41 (Business Committee), and agreed to.

The following is the Report of the Business Committee:
That—

(a) the Proceedings on Consideration of the Television Bill be divided into the parts specified in the second column of the Table set Out below;
(b) the two days which, under the Order [11th May], are given to the Proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading, and portions of those days, shall be allotted in the manlier shown in that Table; and

(c) subject to the provisions of the Order [11th May], each part of the Proceedings shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion at the time specified in the third column of that Table.

TABLE


Allotted Day
Proceedings
Time for conclusion of Proceedings




p.m.


First Day.
New Clauses and Clauses 1 to 17
10.30


Second Day.
New Schedules, Schedules and any other Proceedings necessary to bring the Proceedings on Consideration to a conclusion
7.0



Third Reading
10.30

Orders of the Day — TELEVISION BILL

As amended, considered.

[1ST ALLOTTED DAY]

New Clause.—(ADVISORY COMMITTEES.)

(1) The Authority may appoint, or arrange for the assistance of, advisory committees to give advice to the Authority and programme contractors on such matters as the Authority may determine.


5
(2) Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing subsection, the Authority shall in particular appoint, or arrange for the assistance of—


10
(a) a committee representative of the main steams of religious thought in the United Kingdom, the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands, to give advice to the Authority on any religious services or other matters of a religious nature included in the programmes broadcast by the Authority, or in any publications issued by the Authority; and


15
(b) a committee representative of organisations, authorities and persons concerned with standards of conduct in the advertising of goods and services (including in particular the advertising of goods or services for medical or surgical purposes) to give advice to the Authority and programme contractors as to the principles to be followed in connection with the advertisements included as aforesaid,


20
and it shall be the duty of the Authority to comply and secure compliance with the recommendations of the said committees, subject to such exceptions or modifications, if any, as may appear to the Authority to be necessary or proper having regard to the duties incumbent on them otherwise than under this subsection.—[Mr. Gammons.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

3.42 p.m.

The Assistant Postmaster-General (Mr. David Gammans): I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
I suggest that it would be convenient in discussing this Clause for the House to deal with two other Amendments which stand in my name. They are the Amendment in page 6, line 37, to leave out subsection (3), and the one in page 19, line 26, to leave out "such," and to insert:
period given over to a broadcast of any religious service, or to any such other.
These Amendments deal with the two main issues, namely, religious broadcasting and the advertising of medical goods and services. These matters were, of course, raised in Committee, and I think that hon. Members in different parts of the Committee felt some concern about them. It is for that reason that we have put down these Amendments.
Perhaps I ought to explain, first of all, the exact significance of the words
appoint, or arrange for the assistance of.
The reason for the use of those words is that we are here dealing with two committees. In the case of the second one, the medical committee, as I will call it, dealing with the general standard of advertising, that, of course, would have

to be appointed by the Authority. In the case of the first committee, the Religious Advisory Committee, we hope to secure the services of the same committee as advises the B.B.C. on these matters, and, therefore, it is only a question of arranging for their assistance. That is the only significance of those words.
I shall deal, first, with the paragraph dealing with religious services and what is described as
… other matters of a religious nature included in the programmes …
When we discussed this matter last time, there were, I think, three particular points about which the Committee expressed some concern. The first was the question of religious bodies buying time on the programmes. I would point out that there is no question of their being allowed to buy advertisements. That is ruled out by paragraph 6 of the Second Schedule where it is very clearly laid down that
No advertisement shall be permitted which is inserted by or on behalf of any body …
that is, any religious body; so that closes that door.
What about a religious body buying time in the sense that, because of the money which it could offer, it could gain more than its fair share of the quota of


religious broadcasts? We are content that that door has been very effectively closed by the setting up of the religious advisory committee. This committee, as the House knows, is to represent the main streams of religious thought, but by laying down the further proviso:
… it shall be the duty of the Authority to comply and secure compliance with the recommendations of the said committees, subject.
of course, to the power of the Authority to have the final word, the danger of any one particular religious body getting more than its fair share of the quota has been avoided. The reserve power must be included, as I am sure was agreed when we were discussing this matter in Committee, because otherwise the advisory committee would, in effect, have executive functions. But I think that the Clause, as now amended, deals with the point which I believe at one time troubled hon. Members, that the recommendations of the advisory committee would not be binding on the programme contractors.
The next point about religious services which concerned the Committee when we were discussing the matter was the question of the proximity of advertisements to religious services. We on this side felt that it had already been adequately dealt with by paragraph 3 of the Second Schedule, where the duty was laid in the finality on the Postmaster-General to determine the intervals which must elapse, not merely between advertisements as such, but also between advertisements and special types of programmes, such as religious services. Since in the finality the decision in this matter devolved on the Postmaster-General he could, of course, be questioned about it in the House of Commons. So as to make the intentions of the Government clear beyond doubt—although I think these views are identical on both sides of the House—we now propose to insert the words:
period given over to a broadcast of any religious service, or to any such other broadcasts,
in paragraph 3 of the Second Schedule. I hope that this Amendment will make the point perfectly clear and that it will remove any misgivings.
The general standards that we have accepted in regard to religious broadcasting are acceptable, I understand, to

the British Council of Churches, including representatives of the Churches in Scotland, with whom we have had consultation.
Now let me come to the second main point of the proposed new Clause, medical advertising, and show how we propose to deal with it. While the Authority may appoint any advisory committee which it thinks fit, a second committee has been made mandatory in addition to the religious advisory committee, which was made mandatory before. The second committee is to deal with the general standards of advertising. As I mentioned during the Committee stage, the advertising interests of this country have a very strict code of their own in regard to standards of advertising, and they are anxious to maintain it in the field of television. They have offered to assist us in any way they can.
So, too, has the British Medical Association, whose help will be essential in regard to any type of advertisement that deals with medical or pseudo-medical matters, including, of course, advertisements for drugs. The proposed new Clause therefore specifies exactly the same procedure as was laid down for the religious advisory committee; that is, that the committee must be set up from the start and that the Authority has a duty to comply and to secure compliance with the committee's recommendations, subject to the point about executive functions.
The House may wonder why, since we are laying it down that such a committee must be set up and its recommendations followed, we have not specified in detail what bodies will serve on it. To do so would not be in accordance with normal practice in setting up committees of this sort. It would be out of the question that any medical committee set up by a responsible body like the Independent Television Authority should not include a representative of the Ministry of Health, for example, but if we began naming particular bodies it would be difficult to know where to begin and where to stop. There are several bodies which represent the advertising interests in this country, and there are very numerous bodies representing medical, surgical and similar interests. It would be impossible to put them all down in the Bill at this stage.
The proper way is to leave the matter in the hands of the Authority, which may wish to vary the number of bodies from time to time. I can state quite categorically that the type of committee which the Government envisage will certainly include representatives of the British Medical Association and of the Ministry of Health.
I can sum up this point by saying that my noble Friend the Postmaster-General has been in consultation with the British Medical Association, which I gather feels satisfied that the Bill as now amended and the assurances that I have just given meet their misgivings, and, I hope, those of the many hon. Members who spoke during the Committee stage.
There are some Amendments to the proposed new Clause which we shall have to discuss later. With the agreement of the House I should propose not to comment on them until I have heard the arguments put forward.

Mr. Speaker: I should like to consult the convenience of the House in this matter. There are a number of Amendments to the proposed new Clause, and it would be possible, if it were agreeable to both sides of the House, on the question, "That the Clause be read a Second time," to permit a general discussion embracing the subject matter of the Amendments. Later, when the Clause is read a Second time, I could put to the House the Question on any Amendment on which it was desired to divide the House. If that be agreeable, the Amendment would then be formally moved without further debate. Then the House could divide or not. If that course is followed, I shall propose the Question, and on the discussion hon. Members can cover both the Clause and the subject matter of the Amendments.

Mr. Herbert Morrison: That seems to be the wise course in the circumstances, having regard to the existence of the Guillotine. Perhaps you would allow us to intimate to you if we should wish to divide on any particular Amendment?

Mr. Speaker: Yes, certainly.

Dr. Barnett Stross: The Assistant Postmaster-General has come towards us some way

in bringing forward the proposed new Clause, and in the way it is worded. We particularly welcome the fact that he has stated frankly that a representative of the Ministry of Health will serve on the committee. We know that he has had consultation with the British Medical Association and that he and his right hon. Friend have given assurances which, temporarily at least, have assuaged some of its anxieties. I think the hon. Gentleman also knows full well that the Association cannot and will not be satisfied until some time has passed and it has seen how things go, so as to be able to judge whether embarrassment has come to the public health and to the profession generally.
It would not have been wrong to make further specifications. The difference between our form of words and the words of the Assistant Postmaster-General was countered by him just now. He said that it was not customary to specify who should serve on a committee; that was being left to the Authority which could be allowed to make its own judgments. It would see to it that no important section of the public was left out.
We hoped that by including the words "local authorities" we would get a direct safeguard for consumer interests, because the local authorities are the best people to represent the point of view of the consumer. When we use the term "other bodies" and among them include the Medical Research Council, I hope the Minister will agree that we make a very strong point, which I hope to prove. He has also given us the point about people associated with medicine. It may be that our wording was a little wide, but I hope that the spirit in which we suggested it is accepted by the Minister.
The code to which the Assistant Postmaster-General referred, and which we have accepted in the past, has been honourable and has refused to allow substances to be advertised in the Press which were unproven or were against the interests of the public at large. That situation is not quite a sufficient safeguard for the television screen. On this side of the House we think, and there may be many hon. Members on the Government side who agree with us, that the intimacy of advertising which brings things right into the home is so persuasive that it creates a new situation.


That is augmented by the fact that we have a National Health Service, nearly all the funds of which come from the Exchequer.
4.0 p.m.
The situation is therefore somewhat different. It is for that reason that we ask the hon. Gentleman to give us all possible protection against the excessive self-medication which might ensue if even the most well-proven substances were persuasively and successfully advertised on the television screen—substances which are completely ethical in themselves and against which one can bring no criticism.
I do not wish to dilate on this. The other day I mentioned cortisone. We all know that in certain cases of arthritis and rheumatism that can work wonders, but we are now discovering that in the early stages aspirin apparently appears to be equally effective. Cortisone is very expensive. The hon. Gentleman must agree that it would obviously not be fair to persuade people to buy cortisone when the same results can be obtained in a very much simpler and cheaper way and without any of the risks associated with this powerful new and expensive drug.
Before the war there was a great deal of self-medication. That is not so today. Before the war the figures were running at about £30 million per annum plus £4 million spent on advertising. At today's value that would be about £100 million. I am advised that today self-medication does not run higher, in monetary value, than that pre-war figure. Here the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health will agree that the Service which she represents has certainly affected, for obvious and very satisfactory reasons, a remarkable diminution in self-medication. That is why we inserted the words "Minister of Health." We are very glad indeed to have the assurance of the Assistant Postmaster-General that the Minister is to be directly represented.
The reference to the Medical Research Council is particularly important. Many new substances are being discovered daily. Nearly all of them are being synthesised and do not exist in the ordinary way in nature. It is possible nowadays to order from the research chemist a substance to do a piece of work, in much the same way as ordering a tool

from the machine tool making industry—almost like ordering a suit of clothes or a dress from a tailor or a dressmaker. There is almost nothing the research chemists cannot provide if one explains one's needs. We have had experience of the danger to the public health arising from the use of new substances which have crept into medicine, or are used in the food industry without being fully tested and proven, and the body which knows most about such things is the Medical Research Council.
The Assistant Postmaster-General will remember that some time ago we had a little discussion about smoking, and the dangers of cancer of the lung associated with it. I thought it was agreed that the Minister of Health had made it quite clear that he had to accept, in part at least, the presumption that there was, to put it no higher, an association between the two. We on this side pointed out that the £250,000 paid by the tobacco companies, and so gladly received by the Medical Research Association through the Minister, should help us to solve the problem in a few years. We believed that until then the television screen would not be a suitable vehicle for this type of propaganda. I myself stated—and I am sure that I am right—that the great companies would be entirely agreeable to wait and see what happened from the very large and munificent gift they had offered.
I need not say much more, but would like to use the opportunity to speak of what can happen when the advertiser is either ignorant, foolish or unscrupulous. In April of this year the "Medical World" had a symposium by a group of medical men, all of them more notable and more worthy than I am, on the subject of smoking and lung cancer. I was a contributor and made certain statements. The Minister's views, as given in the House in answer to a Written Question and his Press statement, were most fully and carefully set out and there was this symposium by, I think, 30 medical men.
Amongst other things which I wrote, I used the following words:
Until their recent donation for further research the tobacco companies have used their great financial resources to further the sales of their products. This is natural and no one can blame them. Who is to counter such propaganda and how? Filter tip cigarettes will boom. Manufacturers of patent cigarette


holders will make fortunes. The moderate cigar smoker will gaze pityingly upon his unfortunate neighbour inhaling the smoke of a cigarette, and the pipe smoker will remember that his vice has not been fully incriminated and defend it on historical as well as statistical grounds.
The Sunday Press picked out a portion of what I said, and an opportunity was seen by an enterprising manufacturer in Bristol. He has nothing to do with real tobacco, but makes cigarettes out of herbs—which may be chopped grass or any other such material. He calls his wares bachelor's cigarettes. I must mention them, Mr. Speaker, because I think that I have been most grossly treated. Had I received what I now hold in my hand whilst the House was sitting I would have brought it to your attention. However, I only found out the day after the Recess started.
This Bristol manufacturer has chosen to circularise boys at school. I noted it in the house of my colleague the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Swingler). His son, a boy of 16, had received what I now hold in my hand. It consists of excerpts from the Sunday newspapers and then advertises these cigarettes, made from dried grass or whatever it may be. It states that they have no nicotine, which of course we accept, and are non-injurious, which is grossly improper because it is entirely untrue and certainly unproven.
If that is what is done immediately by an unscrupulous manufacturer and they use the name of hon. Members who have attacked smoking—albeit they are the victims of the habit themselves—and then try to get schoolboys to smoke something else which may be as harmful or in the long run even more harmful than tobacco smoking, I think that we have made out a very strong case to show why we should be most cautious and have the Medical Research Council sitting on this and other committees. I am sorry to have taken so long, but I am sure that hon. Members will understand why I have brought in the last point.

Mr. Somerville Hastings: The Assistant Postmaster-General will remember that when this matter was being dealt with in Committee I pressed him to add a representative of the Ministry of Health to the committee referred to in subsection (2, b) of the proposed new

Clause, and he was courteous enough to say that he would consider the matter. I appreciate what he has done and thank him for it, but I should have been happier if the words "Ministry of Health" had appeared. He has, however, assured the House that it is almost certain that a representative of the Ministry will be included.
This is a matter of the very greatest importance. The object of commercial broadcasting is to sell certain products, including medicines, and the Ministry will have to pay for most of those medicines. A demand will be created by the advertisements, and the potential patients will go to their doctors, under the National Health Service, and say, "Cannot we have this medicine? We have heard so much about it." When that happens, how many doctors, dependent as they are upon the good will of their patients for their salaries, will refuse them? For that financial reason alone it is important that the Ministry should be represented on the committee.
I am very glad to hear that the British Medical Association will be included, and I hope that the Medical Research Council will also be represented. The British Medical Association is not enough by itself. It is possible that in some directions its members may have an outlook which corresponds too closely with that of the advertisers. Doctors may be too ready to agree that special, if not patent, medicines should be advertised, feeling that if people buy them it will save the doctors time and trouble. In that way the sale of medications which, except for minor complaints, is undesirable, may be increased. I am grateful that the Ministry of Health is to be represented, but I hope that the Minister will give careful consideration to the question of the inclusion of a representative of the Medical Research Council.

Mr. George Darling: I want to deal very briefly with two points. I am sorry that in bringing forward the new Clause the Government are still sticking to the idea that the committee which will deal with religious matters shall be
representative of the main streams of religious thought. …
I appreciate the reasons for the Government sticking to this definition, because


that is the kind of committee which advises the B.B.C., but I think it is wrong to continue to leave out religious minorities, especially in view of the promise made by the Board of Governors of the B.B.C., when the Beveridge Committee was reporting, to widen its scope of discussion and its representation of religious and ethical views. That attitude should also apply to the I.T.A. It is wrong completely to ignore religious sects and societies which, although they have not large memberships, have contributed quite a lot to the thought and literature on ethical matters.
4.15 p.m.
My second point concerns the Amendment to the proposed new Clause standing in the names of my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. J. Hudson) and myself, in line 12, after "concerned," to insert "as consumers or otherwise." This Amendment concerns the representation of consumers on the advisory committee dealing with advertising. I am very unhappy at the growth of restrictive professionalism which is now found in so many walks of life. The time has come when we ought not to give even advisory authority to a restrictive body representing its own vested interests and nothing else. I am rather surprised that hon. Members opposite who represent advertising interests are, with one exception, absent when this important matter is being discussed.

Hon. Members: Who is the exception?

Mr. Darling: I was under the impression that the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) had something to do with advertising.

Captain L. P. S. Orr: I can relieve the hon. Member of that impression. I have no connection whatever with advertising.

Mr. Darling: Then we have no representatives of the advertising industry with us, which is rather surprising, although they probably left their instructions behind. The proposed new Clause says that the advisory body shall be
a committee representative of organisations, authorities and persons concerned with standards of conduct in the advertising of goods and services …
I should have thought that in this case, probably more than in any other, public interest ought to be represented. The

Assistant Postmaster General talked about the strict code of conduct laid down by the advertisers, but it is not their code which is strict. The strictness is applied by the newspapers. The Newspaper Proprietors' Association and the Newspaper Society have laid down their own rules in regard to advertising matter in newspapers. It is this code which is accepted as being suitable for application in other fields, but, even so, many questionable and false claims for products are frequently made in news papers.
I do not think that anybody wants to see questionable claims being put forward in this new medium of advertising. We want it to start off with very high standards. At present, in the whole field of broadcasting, we have very high standards with regard to the quality of programmes, and, although no advertising is allowed by the B.B.C., we want to see the high standards they have established obtaining generally throughout the new I.T.A. For that reason this advisory committee should be strengthened so as to deal with advertising on commercial television in much the same way as the Newspaper Proprietors' Association and the Newspaper Society deal with advertising in newspapers.
I believe that it is necessary to include representatives of the general public, as provided in the Amendment to which I have referred. We are all consumers of the products to be advertised and for that reason anybody who is not associated with the interests mentioned in the new Clause, and who has experience of public affairs, should rank as a representative. We should also make sure that the 11 million organised consumers in the corporative societies are not left out of account. If it becomes the duty of the advisory committee to lay down a code of conduct for advertisers in commercial television, it is surely necessary to have a wider body than that provided for in the Clause as it stands at present.

Squadron Leader A. E. Cooper: This new Clause is an attempt by the Government to meet doubts expressed about the Bill. Those of us who have certain misgivings about the operation of commercial television must recognise that the new Clause is a very real advance towards meeting our point of view. Certain hon. Gentlemen opposite are inclined


to think that advertisers will use this medium quite unscrupulously. No experience of commercial life in this country justifies that point of view. For example, as the hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. G. Darling) pointed out, the newspaper proprietors have their own association for working out a code of conduct that is rigidly adhered to.
The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross) illustrated a case of a lapse, but I do not think that he is entitled, because of that one lapse on the part of one unscrupulous person, to imply that everybody else will be unscrupulous. I admit that the case indicates, perhaps, a need to watch that that sort of thing does not happen, but we are not entitled to assume that because one bad thing has been done the new advisory committee will permit any to be done.

Dr. Stross: I should not like it to go out that any newspapers have accepted that type of advertisement. That was an example of incredible enterprise. What that person did was to make photographs of the montages of Sunday newspapers and send them to school boys. I was not speaking against newspapers or their advertisements.

Squadron Leader Cooper: I think that strengthens my case. For all the criticism we level at them from time to time, we know that the newspaper proprietors of this country are by and large reputable and responsible people, and we have become accustomed to expect from them a certain code of conduct, and I am sure that we may expect the same high standards amongst advertisers in the new medium.
The N.P.A. has its committee, which has been working for many years, and from month to month it makes new regulations, and consequently it is not possible for any advertiser to claim, for instance, that he has a cure for cancer or tuberculosis, or to make any claim of that sort for medical goods. The committee consults regularly the top people in the medical profession, and we have no reason to suppose that the new advisory committee for the I.T.A. will not be as careful in obtaining advice from the medical profession as the newspaper proprietors are at the present time.
I was very disturbed by the remarks of the hon. Member for Barking (Mr. Hastings), who implied that because of advertising, whether on television or in the newspapers, doctors would be forced, by pressure upon them, to prescribe this or that remedy. Perhaps a weak doctor would succumb to that sort of pressure, but I do not believe that that is true of the medical profession as a whole. If it were, I doubt very much whether the health of the people of this country would be as good as it is.

Mr. Hastings: I did not say that of the medical profession. I said some of the doctors.

Squadron Leader Cooper: It is very difficult to legislate in such a way as to deal with every single person in a profession. If there are weak doctors who succumb to advertising in any form, they will still be weak doctors whether the new Clause is accepted or not. If the hon. Member accepts that point of view, his case is very considerably weakened. We have in this country a standard of ethics in business and in medicine that is very high indeed, and I do not think that it will be altered whatever regulations are imposed. The same high standards will remain. I am happy to accept the new Clause as going a long way to helping those of us on this side of the House who have had doubts in the past.
The hon. Member for Hillsborough said that organised members of the Co-operative societies—11 million of them, I think he said—and other consumers should be represented on the proposed advisory committee. Superficially, there would appear to be an advantage in that suggestion, but in considering it we have the experience of consumers' councils in the last few years to guide us. Consumers' councils have formed a part of the structure of several nationalised industries. They have operated for several years in the electricity industry and the gas industry, and so on.
I think any fair-minded person would admit that the consumers' councils have, by and large, been complete failures. There is very little interest in them amongst the public, and very little desire in the public to deal with them. Perhaps they could do some good, but my point is that at present they are a complete waste of time. In any case, it would seem to me that the interests of the consumers


will be represented by the bodies and persons of whom the advisory committee is to be representative.

Mr. William Ross: The Assistant Postmaster-General, in moving the new Clause, seemed to think he had been very generous to the Opposition and had gone a long way to allay all the fears about what would happen about religious broadcasting in the new set-up. At first sight, admittedly, the new Clause seems to improve the Bill a bit, but a full examination of it gives rise to new fears, and consequently to the doubt whether we are any further forward.
We on this side of the House tried to obtain a guarantee of a minimum of religious broadcasting by the new set-up, but there is nothing in the Bill or in the new Clause that gives us that guarantee. All we have now is a promise of an advisory committee, or of assistance by an existing advisory committee, to advise the Independent Television Authority on any programmes. There is not apparently to be advice on how many programmes of a religious character should be broadcast. It is assumed that the Authority will decide to have religious broadcasts, but there is no guarantee that there will be any religious broadcasting, and the commercial nature of the whole set-up makes it most unlikely that there will be religious broadcasting.
4.30 p.m.
We have the very good point that
it shall be the duty of the Authority to comply and secure compliance with the recommendations of the said committees.
We welcome those words, but when we read further we must ask for some explanation from the Government, because those words are
subject to such modifications and exceptions, if any, as may appear to the Authority to be necessary or proper having regard to the duties incumbent on them otherwise than under this subsection.
What does that mean? As far as I can read it, the Authority may search through the Bill and discover other duties which would allow it to disregard all the advice given. There is the financial duty that, as soon as possible, the Authority should make the system pay.
To my mind these words might permit the Authority to do what we have been promised by the Postmaster-General it will not do and what most religious

organisations in the country do not want it to do—that is, permit a religious organisation to buy time, paying the I.T.A. in order to have time on the air. Is that to be one of the duties to which the Authority can point in saying, "We will not accept your advice"?
The Assistant Postmaster-General must make the position much clearer before we can accept the Clause. He must make clear exactly what he envisages by these modifications and exceptions to which he deliberately subjects the acceptance of the advice of the committees. The Clause is a slight advance towards reason, but the hon. Gentleman should not think for a minute that he has met the objections which we advanced in Committee or allayed the fears which we still have.

Mr. F. P. Bishop: I rise for a moment to correct, if I may, a misapprehension under which I believe the hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. G. Darling) is suffering about the control of advertising. He appeared to believe that it was the newspaper organisations only which maintained committees for regulating and controlling advertising. It is true that the newspapers have a committee which exercises a very severe control over the advertising which appears in the Press. I have had some experience in these matters; for some years I was chairman of that committee.
But the main and more general organisation which now deals with these matters is the Advertising Association which is, as it were, the federal body composed of all the organisations which are concerned with advertising—the newspapers, the advertising agents, the advertisers, the billposters and others. That organisation is responsible for what I think may be called the main code which exists for the control of advertising.

Mr. G. Darling: The hon. Member seems to have misunderstood me. I know about the Advertising Association and its code. The sanction behind that code lies in the subcommittee of the N.P.A., and without that sanction the Advertising Association's code would be worthless.

Mr. Bishop: It is true that the sanction, that is to say, the power to enforce the rules—depends on the individual associations, not only the newspapers in their sphere but the billposters in their sphere and so on; but it is the Advertising


Association which brings together all the rules and regulations of the individual bodies and which lays down a code which those bodies accept and enforce on their own members. I wanted to make that point clear. Although I am not now engaged in the advertising business, for many years I was associated with these things, and I had the honour of being the chairman of the first committee appointed many years ago by the Advertising Association to investigate the advertising of patent medicine. We had on that committee representatives of the B.M.A. and of the manufacturing chemists as well as others who represented the different interests concerned, the public interest by no means being excluded from all those deliberations.
I am sure the advertising interests will welcome the new Clause. My hon. Friend can be assured that the I.T.A. will find no difficulty in assembling a responsible body of advisers to help it in this matter, a body which, it will find, is as much concerned for the credit of advertising and for sound conduct in the business as any Members of the House could be.

Mr. James Hudson: I am rather concerned about the support which was given to the Clause by the hon. Member for Harrow, Central (Mr. Bishop) and the hon. and gallant Member for Ilford, South (Squadron Leader Cooper), who appeared to think it was completely satisfactory. I am not quite so sure.
For example, I do not accept the view of the hon. and gallant Member that the advertisers always avoid unscrupulous conduct in carrying on their advertising. Only this weekend an hon. Member in a well-known Sunday newspaper gave an account of the action of a famous firm of brewers who, in order to obtain the opinion of doctors about the merits of their commodity—which opinion they would probably advertise later—had offered the doctors a case of the liquors which were to be advertised. That was an example of unscrupulousness in obtaining an unbiased medical opinion. I am sure that medical men would know how to withstand the temptation, but the brewers' intentions in this case are an indication that we cannot rely on standards of scrupulous conduct as some hon. Members suggest.
As the House has no doubt guessed, it is this issue which has brought me to my feet to ask, briefly, some questions about the main streams of religious thought which are referred to in the Clause. The Assistant Postmaster-General said that the Government have had consultations with the British Council of Churches and the Churches in Scotland. I should respect both those bodies very much except that the British Council of Churches does not represent all the churches and is not very interested in the subject in which I am deeply interested—although I do not think the Council is in any sense opposed to what I shall say in this matter.
There is in existence a Temperance Council of the Christian Churches which is representative of all the Churches without exception and which is vitally interested in this question of advertising. It is interested, for example, to see that there shall not be advertising of cocktails for adolescents. It does not wish to see the advertising now taking place in the Press extended into the homes of the people. It is very concerned, as was the Royal Commission, about the advertising of medicated wines for the purpose of deluding distressed invalids. The Council does not want to see the wireless used in that field.
I believe that the watchdog duty on this question would almost be better exercised by the Temperance Council of the Christian Churches. I shall not speak about Scotland, because I know that the Church of Scotland has its temperance committee which is vitally concerned about this matter, as is the temperance council for England. Speaking of England, however, I should say, that there is a case for considering representation of this type, not only when dealing with the main streams of religious thought but when dealing with ail other matters of a religious nature which are to be included in the programmes.
I have not put an Amendment on the Order Paper because I think that the Home Secretary will be sympathetic with the contentions which I have put forward. I hope that in his reply he will be able to give some undertaking that in the development of this advisory committee the type of thought which I have expressed will be taken into account.
I think that it is important to take it into account, because when we come to


subsection (2, b) of the new Clause, concerning the standards of conduct in the advertising of goods and services, it is only the B.M.A. and the Ministry of Health which are referred to. Again, on the question of breaches into the field of temperance which are likely to be made by successful advertising through television, I should say that under that head also there is a ground for the effective representation of temperance opinion on this committee. I agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Hillsborough (Mr. G. Darling) has said about the Co-operative movement. I put in my plea also for the Co-operative movement.
I hope that this matter will be taken seriously into consideration by the Home Secretary. Briefly, I am pressing very strongly that the Home Secretary should say that the Temperance Council of the Christian Churches might be considered to be the kind of body which should be included under the terms of this Amendment.

Mr. Charles Ian Orr-Ewing: I rise only for a moment to refute the suggestion made by hon. Members opposite concerning the intentions of this Clause. It was suggested that there was no advertising by the B.B.C. I think that many of us, while appreciating the difficulties of the B.B.C., are feeling some alarm at the way in which advertising creeps into the B.B.C.
One may find it very difficult—and I speak as an old B.B.C. producer—to exclude involuntary advertising being seen. particularly in outside broadcasts. I remember that in 1939 I was responsible for televising the Derby. The day before we were doing a rehearsal, and a little man came up and said, "You are wonderful people; how will you be able to show the start right across Epsom Downs?" I said, "We have a big telephoto lens and we shall see that clearly." He said, "What area will that take in?" I said, "That tree over there will mark the left-hand side of the picture and the starting gate will mark the right-hand side of the picture." The next day, on that tree, I found a huge placard with Seagers' Gin written on it. Involuntarily we had to include the advertisement in the programme.
I think that those Members who saw last night's broadcast from Basle Stadium

of the football there—particularly the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. J. Hudson)—must be deeply shattered to find Martell's brandy and Longine's watches advertised on the score-board, and I remember seeing Firestone tyres and lots of other involuntary advertisements.
Let us come to the voluntary ones. Whenever a show is beginning to flop the first thing one notices is that the producer or manager arrives and says, "I wonder if you would like to do a broadcast of our show for the B.B.C. theatre?" One says, "Why?" He says, "It is a very good show." It is true to say that one of the longest and most successful runs in a theatre in London—"Me and my Girl,"—had notices up that the show was coming off, but before that happened a short broadcast was given, and the "Lambeth Walk" became an almost internationally-known tune. As the result of the plug given to that show, it ran for a number of years, gave a great deal of pleasure and made a lot of money for the people who put it on. It is not right to say that there is no advertising, sometimes voluntarily and sometimes involuntarily, on the B.B.C.

Mr. Edward Shackleton: When the I.T.A. or the programme contractors put on a show they will pay for it. They do not pay for the right of advertising.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: I quite agree that they do not pay for the right of advertising. That brings me to my point, if I may finish my argument. The "Radio Times" itself in its ordinary broadcasts feels compelled to give acknowledgment all along the line, and one has only to listen or to look in any day to find examples of this sort of thing. Take today's programme, in the Home Service, at seven o'clock, I find that it says, "Mr. Jon Farrell is appearing in 'Guys and Dolls' at the London Coliseum," and the same announcement is put on at the end of the programme.
We are seeking in this Clause, which has my support, to set up a code of advertising. I hope that this code may form a code not only for the I.T.A. and programme companies but also for the B.B.C. itself. In the process of time and as the new code evolves, there must be something to be gained from experience.


I think that the B.B.C. has itself imposed, patiently and conscientiously, a code which is generally acceptable in this country. I think that we would be hypocritical if we said that there was not advertising on the B.B.C. at the moment because, undoubtedly, there is a good deal of advertising, both voluntary and involuntary.

Mr. Ernest Davies: Will the hon. Gentleman say whether, in this case, he does not support the Amendment which we have down, in line 16, to insert the words:
and to prepare and submit to the Authority a code of such standards of conduct as aforesaid"?
He has been speaking in favour of a code, and would he not agree that it should be inserted in the Bill?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: I have used this argument times without number, and in every single case hon. Members opposite have tried to write everything into the Bill. Surely that is wrong. We are trying to start a new corporation, rather tentatively and hesitantly, and we have to see how it is going to work out. From the point of view of the public who are to receive this second programme, I think that it is in their own interest that we should not lay down hard and fast rules at this stage.

Sir Leslie Plummer: The speech of the hon. Member for Hendon, North (Mr. C. I. Orr-Ewing) leads me naturally to what I want to say, because I am rising to speak on the second of the two Amendments in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) and other hon. Members.
The speeches we have heard from the other side have illustrated the fact that we are now moving to a code of ethical conduct to be observed by advertisers and to be enforced either by the Authority or by the Government. There is, of course, still a fair amount of confusion. The hon. and gallant Member for Ilford, South (Squadron-Leader Cooper) talked as though we were not including a Clause to protect the credulous, the silly and the vain from the depredations of advertisers. This is exactly what the new Clause introduced by the Assistant Postmaster-General seeks to do. It is exactly what the hon. Member for

Harrow, Central (Mr. Bishop) was doing when he spoke of the N.P.A. Committee set up to protect newspapers and their readers from the depredations of advertisers.
What we are seeking now is this. The Government are now recognising the need to set up an advisory committee which will give advice to the Authority, not only on the matter of patent medicines, but on all other matters concerning the selling of goods. That is of great importance, and the Committee must inevitably produce a code of ethics and standards of conduct. If so, as these Amendments make it quite clear, they should be submitted to the Authority and should be available to this House as they are approved by the Postmaster-General; and it should be made clear to the House if at any time there is any alteration to them.
The necessity for this, is absolutely clear. There has been sitting in Turin a most important but unnoticed body, the Congress of the International Union of the Medical Press. We ought at this stage to mention that the medical Press behaves impeccably over the question of patent medicines. The British Medical Journal, for example, loses perhaps hundreds and thousands of pounds a year because it refuses to take any patent medicine advertising. The editor of that journal, together with other representatives of the international medical Press meeting in Turin, have passed a resolution calling on their members and on their Governments to do something about the social consequences of spreading incorrect medical information.
When the hon. and gallant Member for Ilford, North talks as though there are merely a few isolated people who here and there, by accident almost, give false medical information and, therefore, we should not need to worry about it unduly. He completely overlooks the concern of the international medical journalists, men of the highest medical repute, who are very much concerned with what is going on. That means that we should have a standard or code of ethics for advertisers, not on the same basis as that instituted by the Newspapers Proprietors Association and the Newspaper Society, but far more strict.
What the hon. Member for Hendon, North reluctantly refuses to face is that


this medium, the effectiveness of which has been described so graphically, is different from newspapers because it is designed to catch the potential customer unawares. It intrudes into his home; it comes in as a guest in an entirely different way from that in which a newspaper comes in. For those reasons, and because it has a mass circulation far greater than any newspaper could possibly command, it is utterly necessary that the code of conduct should be rigid, absolutely firm and clear, not only to the advertisers, but to hon. Members of this House and to the public too.
It will be argued that this makes the prospect of commercial television being profitable not so good. Indeed, I note what two of the great newspaper proprietors have already said. I quote one of them:
T.V. looks like being so surrounded by restrictions that its operation will not be profitable either to advertisers or to programme companies.
But that is not the consideration. The importance of commercial television is the service it provides to the people, and not to the advertiser. If these restrictions that are being placed upon it make it commercially unattractive, that is something that the Government and the advertiser will have to face up to. But it would be criminal if, in the interests of making profits for the advertisers, we lowered the standard of commercial television below that of the least choosy of the newspapers.
The importance of getting a code clearly established is underlined by what the Assistant Postmaster-General himself said in opening this debate. He said that it was not possible at this stage nor desirable for him to indicate who should be members of the advisory committee. I wonder why he says that. The B.B.C., in its paid-for advertising appearing in its own journals—"The Radio Times" "The Listener" and the rest—exercises a first-class censorship over its advertising. It does not accept the sort of advertising that we fear and which the Assistant Postmaster-General fears would get on the screen but for the committee that he proposes to set up.
It is worth considering the constitution of the B.B.C.'s general advisory committee which advises the B.B.C. of what form of advertising to accept. It comprises the Advertising Appointments

Bureau, the Advertising Association, the Association of British Travel Agents, the Association of Musical Instruments Industries, the British Horological Institute, the Incorporated Advertisement Managers' Association, the Incorporated Sales' Managers Association, the Incorporated Society of British Advertisers, the Institute of Incorporated Practitioners in Advertising, the Retail Trading Standards Association, the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons and the Society of Diploma Members of the Advertising Association. That is the sort of body that sees that the advertisements appearing in the B.B.C. papers and journals are of the necessary high standard. They produce a code of ethics for the B.B.C. It is utterly essential that when we come to television, a body no less strong in its constitution and no less experienced should also be giving advice.
It is essential that the code of ethics should be clear to everybody, and it should be published annually. I should like to see it published in the annual report of the I.T.A. and discussed in the House of Commons. I should like it to be the duty of the Assistant Postmaster-General and of the Government every time the code was altered to come to the House and say that it had been altered, and give the reasons for it. I will give a reason to show why that is important.
A great trade war is now going on between the dairymen, who do not advertise, and the margarine producers, who do advertise. One of the margarine advertisers, who has, no doubt, a standard of ethics himself, issued some advertising which he wanted inserted in the Press, saying that his margarine was creamier than butter. The newspaper refused to take the advertising because it was not true. That is the difference between the standard of ethics of the advertiser and the standard of ethics of the newspaper. The newspaper says, "You will not be allowed to say that sort of thing to our readers," although the advertiser thought that it was a perfectly ethical thing to do.
That is what we want in commercial television. Any departure from such a standard should be discussed in this House. I hope that the Assistant Postmaster-General, who has gone a long way in branding some of the advertisers as being undesirable gentlemen—with, for


instance, the sort of thing that he said should not be mentioned when the debates on this subject began about 18 months ago—will see that the Government insist on a code of ethics, that they give power to the new committee to demand that the code of ethics is obeyed, and that he will table the code of ethics for discussion in the House when necessary.

Mr. G. R. Mitchison: We on this side want to keep apart the two proposed committees. One of them is, apparently, to be a committee of poachers, not even turned gamekeepers, to advise on the ethics of poaching. We have just heard about it from several experts, and I have no doubt that that committee will make quite a nice job of it; but we certainly would like to see that we know what it is doing. That is why we want the code to be published and why we want the Postmaster-General to have to approve the code and any changes that are made in it from time to time, so that he may be questioned upon it.
We think, however, that those people are not the right people to advise on questions of public health and professional practice and the general questions of national interest that obviously arise in connection, not only with medical advertisements, but with matters affecting medicine and public health in the programmes.
I see no reason why a religious committee should advise on both the advertisements and the programmes and the medical committee should be limited to advise on advertisements. There is just as much to be said for doing what we propose and what the Assistant Postmaster-General does not propose to do; that is, giving the proposed medical advisory committee power to deal with the whole of the programmes and not merely with the advertisements in them.
5.0 p.m.
I am not going into the details, but we know, and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health knows very well, that a great deal of harm has been done by medical discoveries being publicised too soon and used too soon, with the effect of producing for instance, a strain of bacteria resistent to tuberculosis cures. That sort of damage has been done in other countries, too. The trouble had to

be corrected here with a great deal of difficulty, and we do not want it repeated by these advertisements or other items in the programmes.
I want to say a word or two about consumers. It seems to me wholly unfair to leave out the consumers. I differ from the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) who said that consumers' advisory committees for electricity and gas were of no use. My experience is the exact opposite. I think that matters of this sort ought not to be left entirely to the professional people, whether they are professional advertisers or medical professionalists. We ought to do more than that.
Lastly, there is one Amendment that has not been mentioned and which I should like to mention. In these matters the Authority can only enforce compliance through the contracts it makes with the programme contractors, and it has not been given any other powers to carry out what is required. It should itself be subject to the directions of the Postmaster-General who should take his share of the responsibility for what is done with regard to these committees. There is at present no provision of that sort in the Bill, and to put it in will enable the Postmaster-General to be questioned, when he would not otherwise be liable to be questioned, about the character of the advice given and the degree of compliance which was secured.
For all these reasons, I regard these Amendments as differing very materially from the Clause, and I find the Clause wholly unsatisfactory because it is quite insufficient and it gives far too much to the vested interests in advertising which I would not be content to entrust to them in a matter of such public importance.

Captain Orr: I personally would have no great objection at all to the Amendment in line 16, at the end, insert:
and to prepare and submit to the Authority a code of such standards of conduct as aforesaid.
I would have no objection to the committee which it is proposed to be set up having to prepare a code of conduct, or, indeed, having to publish such a code of conduct. I think, however, that it is better if this sort of thing is left in the informal way in which the Clause leaves it. I should have thought that the rights


of Parliament were more than satisfied by Clause 4 (5) which says:
Without prejudice to any of the duties incumbent on the Authority … it shall be the duty of the Authority to consult from time to time with the Postmaster-General … and to carry out any directions which he may give them. …
I recollect that in Committee some of us on these benches thought that that was going much too far. I should have thought that that completely covered the desire of the Opposition as expressed in the Amendment in line 20, at the end, add:
and
(ii) to submit to the Postmaster-General for approval and thereafter to publish and secure compliance with the said code as approved with or without modifications by the Postmaster-General:
Provided that from time to time the Authority may after consultation with the said last-mentioned committee and with the approval of the Postmaster-General modify the said code and that the Postmaster-General shall lay before Parliament the said code and any modifications thereof made as aforesaid by the Authority.

Mr. Mitchison: May I ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman a short and simple question? Does he not agree that the subsection from which he has just read does not enable us to put any questions to the Postmaster-General because it is up to the Authority to consult him?

Captain Orr: I am not a lawyer, but I should have thought that if, as is stated at the end of the subsection, the Authority is to be under the obligation of carrying out any directions which the Postmaster-General may give it, that would mean that the Postmaster-General would be subject to questioning in the House of Commons about any of the descriptions of goods or services which must not be advertised, or the methods of advertising, and so on. I am speaking subject to correction by lawyers on the matter. I do not know whether the hon. and learned Member would agree that that is right.
I should like to ask my hon. Friend the Assistant Postmaster-General a point which arises out of the intervention of the hon. Member for Hendon, North (Mr. C. I. Orr-Ewing), namely, the question of involuntary advertising. If a programme contractor is under certain obligations about the classes of goods that he must or must not advertise, which classes of goods are mentioned in his

contract, and he is under the general fear of penalty clauses and so on if he advertises a certain matter, I take it that that applies only to matters which are mentioned in advertisements for which he is directly paid, and that it does not apply to advertisements which appear involuntarily, as so many advertisements appear involuntarily, in the B.B.C. programmes. I should be obliged if my hon. Friend could deal with that point, because it seems to me to be of some substance.

Mr. Ness Edwards: I think that we have to consider this new Clause in relation to the Amendments to it. Before coming to that matter, however, I should like to say that the last point raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) was very interesting. Under the set-up as it is now proposed, there is no advisory committee to the Postmaster-General. There is an advisory committee to the I.T.A. The advisory committee to the I.T.A. makes certain recommendations which the I.T.A. accepts. Is it suggested that the Postmaster-General, without any advice at all, under Clause 4 (4) and (5), is to tell the I.T.A. that it must not carry out the advice of the advisory committee? That seems to me to indicate that the Assistant Postmaster-General's well intentioned Clause does not meet the position with which we are concerned in this series of Amendments.

Mr. M. Turner-Samuels: Does my right hon. Friend observe that at the end of this Clause there is no obligation whatever on the I.T.A. to accept the advice of the advisory committee, and that whatever advice is given can be rejected by the I.T.A.?

Mr. Ness Edwards: Yes. I was coming to that point later on. I am obliged to my hon. and learned Friend for reminding me of it.
Let us see what the new Clause does. It proposes that there should be, in addition to any other committees, two specific advisory committees to the I.T.A. The first is a committee to deal with religious broadcasts. The second committee is to deal with a generality of things, including the medical side and the code of advertising.
What astonishes me is that the code of advertising becomes a matter for the representative of the B.M.A. I should have thought that it was equally important to have medicines and quack remedies the subject of a medical advisory committee, and that the general code of advertising is another matter altogether. I should have thought that that was the right way of approaching the problem.
On the general code about which we are very concerned, it is important that the consumers should have special representation in order to consider general misrepresentation or representation of the goods to be advertised and the methods to be employed. I should have thought that that would have been the better method of doing this job.
There is one further point. I quite agree that this advisory committee ought not to have the power of making recommendations which are obligatory upon the I.T.A.; otherwise, they would then become executive bodies. But what the hon. and gallant Gentleman did not deal with was the case in which the I.T.A. consistently rejects the advice of its advisory committee, and, there, we have had no indication of what would happen. We have had no indication what the position would be if the I.T.A. rejected the advice because that advice was in conflict with its general responsibilities, and I thought that we might have had some more information about that point.
Let us now look at the Amendments. The first one deals precisely with the medical point. The second is concerned particularly with the rights of consumers, and it is highly important, because consumers—the viewers—are the important people in this matter. The next Amendment but one deals with the general code and standards of conduct, and the next following with submitting that code to the Postmaster-General for his approval. The final one gives authority to the Postmaster-General to decide as between the I.T.A. and the advisory committees. How does this new Clause meet the points raised in all these Amendments?
First of all, we have throughout the debate assumed that the rules will be submitted to this House, and, on this point, I would remind the Assistant Postmaster-General of his own statement of 20th May, in which he said this:

I would remind hon. Members that the whole code of advertisement has not only to be agreed by the Authority but approved by the Postmaster-General."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th May, 1954; Vol. 527, c. 2334.]
That is not provided for in this new Clause.

Captain Orr: Surely it is provided for in Clause 4 (3)?

Mr. Ness Edwards: The body to determine that was to be the advisory committee, which was to draft this code, which would then have to be submitted to the Postmaster-General, but, apparently, in this Clause, there is no prior submission of the code to the Postmaster-General. It may be argued by the Assistant Postmaster-General that the Second Schedule covers that point, but I would draw his attention to the fact that the Second Schedule deals with the times and position of advertisements, and not with a general code or standard, which is something entirely different.
What have these committees to do? Surely, the advisory committee will be concerned about balance, and the special advisory committee will certainly be concerned about religion. The other one will be concerned with a proper proportion, and the interpretation and general balance of the programme. Surely, these are matters for the advisory committee, and I should have thought that the advisory committee should deal with them rather than that they should come to be mixed up with a particular group of medical matters.
Even if the hon. Gentleman does not accept our advice as to the constitution or shape of the committee, or that this code ought to be approved by the Postmaster-General, we think that, where the I.T.A. does not accept the general recommendations of the code committee, that fact ought to be made known to this House. Where there is a repeated rejection by the I.T.A. of the recommendations coming from any of these committees, that ought to be made known to this House, and that is fundamental if this House is to control the character of commercial broadcasting.
As far as I can see, there is no other means of accounting to this House for what will be done over commercial television. There will be no means at all of exercising any control over the Independent Television Authority, and, on the


other hand, it seems to us that the Postmaster-General will have to do a lot of overriding if we are to have a chance of raising with him any matter concerning what is happening.
5.15 p.m.
It is for these reasons that we have put down these various Amendments, and we should like to hear from the Assistant Postmaster-General what are his answers to these special points, which I will briefly recapitulate. First of all, how is the House to be made aware of the continuous or continued rejection of advice from the advisory committees to the I.T.A.? Secondly, where the I.T.A. is continuously in conflict with the advisory committees, who will decide, and whether that conflict can be the subject of questioning in this House? Next, whether the code recommended by the committee, whether in the form provided or not, will require the approval of the Postmaster-General, and whether it is to be reported to this House? These are points on which we should like to hear what the Assistant Postmaster-General has to say, because it seems to me they are not resolved at all in this new Clause.

Mr. Gammans: If I may have the leave of the House to speak again, perhaps it would be an advantage if I were to intervene at this stage. I hope the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Ness Edwards) will not mind if I deal with these matters chronologically rather than straight away answer his questions.
First of all, the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross) thought that the advisory committee on advertising standards should include representatives of the Medical Research Council, public health bodies and local authorities. Perhaps it should, and perhaps it might. There is nothing whatever to prevent the Independent Television Authority from adding the representatives of such bodies to that committee if they think it is necessary to do so. What I was anxious to do at this stage was to meet the fears expressed on both sides during the Committee stage lest undesirable medical advertisements should appear, and I think the House was entitled to have our views on how we propose to stop that by placing representatives of the British Medical Association and also of the Ministry of Health on that committee. I assure the

House that there is nothing whatever to prevent the Independent Television Authority from adding to its numbers as it thinks fit.
The hon. Member for Barking (Mr. Hastings) raised another point. He feared that this Authority might put on advertisements which might encourage people to ask their doctors for proprietary medicines, which might be no better than National Health Service medicines, but might be more expensive. I must remind the hon. Gentleman that some little time ago my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health told National Health Service doctors not to prescribe medicines which were advertised to the public, on the grounds that it was for the doctor to decide what a patient should have and not for the patient himself. That instruction also went a little further. The doctors were told not to prescribe proprietory preparations for which there is a standard and less expensive alternative. In fact if doctors do so, I understand that they can be asked to pay for it themselves. I think that the point which the hon. Member has in mind, and to which we all attach considerable importance, is adequately covered now in that way.

Mr. Hastings: It is quite true that that deals with medicines, alternatives to which are provided, but there are medicines advertised which are believed to be worthless but for which there is no alternative in the Pharmacopoeia. What about those? May they not be advertised, and therefore might they not be demanded by patients? It is quite possible that the doctors might not agree to the demands, but might not the patients, having seen something about them on the television, demand them of the doctor, and might not the Minister of Health know that they are of very little value?

Mr. Gammans: That may be so, and that is the reason why we are putting a representative of the Ministry of Health and also one of the B.M.A. on the committee, so that if a particular medicine is of itself harmful it would come, I imagine, under the ban which those two representatives would insist upon.
If a medicine is not particularly harmful but happens to be more expensive, I


think that is covered by the instructions already given by the Minister of Health to the National Health Service doctors that if they go on prescribing an expensive proprietary medicine instead of the ordinary drug, if I may so put it, they will have to pay for it.
I come to the point made by the hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. G. Darling), in which he said he objected to our employing the same religious advisory committee as the B.B.C. He feared that if we did so some of the smaller religious sects would not have the same chance as they might otherwise have. During the Committee stage I gave, I hope adequately, the reasons why we are sticking to that committee. One of the reasons why, in the finality, the I.T.A. can overrule that committee is because that provides the Authority with a chance to listen to the views of some of the smaller sects which are not represented on that committee.
I imagine that the B.B.C. has done so. For example, last night there was a Unitarian service, I think from Wales. The Unitarians are not represented on the B.B.C. religious advisory committee. Whether that committee gave advice to the B.B.C. that a Unitarian Service should be broadcast, or whether that was a matter on which the B.B.C. did not listen to the advisory committee, I have no means of knowing. The reason why we have accepted the same committee is that it is a committee which on the whole, I think, has worked well. The Authority is given the power to override the committee, and I gather that the right hon. Member for Caerphilly admits that, as it is an advisory committee, it must be so treated.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: This is not the B.B.C. but commercial television. Would the Assistant Postmaster-General answer this specific question: What is the good of drawing up a code or receiving advice if there is no obligation to follow either, however desirable it is that that should be done in the public interest as against the commercial interest of the I.T.A.? I should like the hon. Gentleman to deal with that Question.

Mr. Gammans: I shall deal with that point, but I would point out that the I.T.A. has no commercial interests. The

hon. and learned Member appears to be thinking of the programme contractors.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: Surely the I.T.A. is there in order to carry on this undertaking as commercial television, and the new Clause which the hon. Gentleman is proposing makes it quite clear that if the interests of that position demand that the Authority should reject advice, it can do so.

Mr. Gammans: If I may, I will deal with the point about the rejection of advice in a few moments. That is a much wider question.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: Will the hon. Gentleman answer my question?

Mr. Gammans: I will answer the first part of it by saying that the I.T.A. has no commercial interests as such. That is exactly why we set it up. It is a body appointed, as the House well knows, in the same way as the B.B.C. is appointed, by the Government. It is a supervisory body, and I should resist any suggestion that it has any commercial interests as such.
The hon. Member for Hillsborough raised the point, when he spoke about the Amendment in his name, in regard to the representation of consumers on committees. I go a good way with him on that point. I think that the consumers' interests are frequently forgotten and in a matter of this sort we must certainly not overlook them. At one time we wondered whether we ought to put consumers on the advisory committee on standards. We came to the conclusion not to do so, the reason being that the enormous number of consumer interests likely to be affected would be such that there would be difficulty in deciding on any reasonable number of people who could be said to represent them.
For example, if one thinks of the traders' interests, the number of trading associations is legion. When one thinks of general consumers' interests the difficulty is even greater.

Mr. Ness Edwards: That does not mean that they are going unrepresented?

Mr. Gammans: No, but there is a better way of doing it than that.
There will probably be a general advisory committee for the I.T.A. Certainly the Authority has the power to


set up such a committee. There is nothing to prevent it from doing so. I imagine that this is one of the committees which the Authority will feel it desirable to set up voluntarily, to consider not only the effect or desirability of advertisements on the public, but also the programmes as well. That is, it would be rather a similar committee to the one the B.B.C. has set up. The reason why this function cannot be placed on the standards committee is that the House was so worried about general advertising standards that it asked me whether I would make a special committee on the subject mandatory, and that is what I have done.

Mr. G. Darling: I agree with the Assistant Postmaster-General that trying to represent all consumer interests is extraordinary difficult, but surely the point could be met by having, among these representatives of special interests, one disinterested cynic.

Mr. Gammans: I hope that there will be more than one disinterested cynic as such on all committees.
I am not trying to evade the hon. Gentleman's point. I think there should be representatives of consumer interests but I believe the proper way to do it is on the general committee which will consider not only the different aspects of advertising but the programmes as well.

Mr. Shackleton: Would the recommendations of that committee be mandatory in the same way as those of these special committees.

Mr. Gammans: Of course not. It will be an advisory committee.
The hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross), was, I thought, a little pessimistic in his outlook. He asked me whether the religious advisory committee could advise on how many religious broadcasts there should be. I should certainly say "Yes, they could." I imagine, although I do not know definitely, that that is the function which is performed for the B.B.C. by their own religious advisory committee. I certainly should not think it was much of an advisory committee if it recommended what type but not how often.
5.30 p.m.
He also raised the point—contrary, I thought, to the advice of the right hon. Member for Caerphilly—that the Inde-

pendent Television Authority could overrule the advice of the religious advisory committee. The Authority can do so, that is perfectly clear, because otherwise it would be an executive and not an advisory committee. There are some smaller religious sections in this country who are pleased that the advice given by the religious advisory committee to the B.B.C. can he overruled if necessary, because similarly no mandatory obligation rests upon the B.B.C.—

Mr. Turner-Samuels: They can overrule general advice, whether it is religious advice, or advice on medical goods or services or anything else.

Mr. Gammans: Of course, otherwise it would be an executive and not an advisory committee.
Now we come to the question of standards, which brings me to the Amendment which is in two parts—

Mr. Ross: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves that point, may I remind him that I referred specifically to whether or not the financial duty laid upon the Independent Television Authority would permit it to reject the advice of the religious committee with reference to religious bodies buying time.

Mr. Gammans: I am not sure what the hon. Gentleman means. There can be no buying of time by a Church. If a Church wished to do so, no religious advisory committee would accept any such offer. The hon. Gentleman is apparently saying to me, "Is it possible for the Independent Television Authority to overrule the advice of its religious advisory committee over the buying of time?" Yes, in theory it can. But the hon. Gentleman, I think, has considerably less faith in the honesty and the sense of public duty of a body like the I.T.A. if he thinks—

Mr. Ross: The point is that there is no other body like the I.T.A.

Mr. Gammans: Of course there is not—

Mr. Ross: Then why refer to, "a body like the I.T.A."?

Mr. Gammans: A body constituted like the I.T.A. If hon. Gentlemen based their whole case on the proposition that the I.T.A. will be a crowd of crooks


we shall not be in agreement on very much. But if the hon. Gentleman says to me that this is a responsible body of men and women—and when we announce the names I think that he will—then we may get somewhere. But if we go on the assumption that they are not to be trusted, I think that is a little unfair.

Mr. Ross: This is an important point, and it cannot be repeated often enough by the Government.

Mr. M. Follick: Why should not a religious body buy time? Supposing Mr. Billy Graham wanted to buy time, what would the position then be?

Mr. Gammans: They cannot buy time under the Bill because it is a religious service, unless the religious advisory committee has considered it. The committee fixes the number of services.

Mr. Shackleton: I hope that the I.T.A. will be a responsible body, and my question is based on that assumption. I should like to know what happens if a programme contractor wishes to donate a religious programme of a particular denomination. Will the advisory committee and the I.T.A. still have power to ban that?

Mr. Gammans: Yes, of course, because the religious advisory committee does not advise the programme contractors only, but the Authority as well.

Mr. Gordon Walker: How will it know whether a programme has been donated, or bought, or if it is just another programme? How will it discover that a programme has been donated, or time has been bought?

Mr. Gammans: I do not see that it matters whether it is donated or bought, or given free, or what.

Mr. Gordon Walker: So that it can be bought?

Mr. Gammans: I do not know what the right hon. Gentleman means.

Mr. Gordon Walker: The time for it can be bought?

Mr. Gammans: No. This religious advisory committee will draw up a list of services which will be put on by the

Authority and may be paid for by the Authority. I think that in the first instance they probably will be paid for by the Authority; though there is nothing whatever to prevent a programme contractor later on—for the sake of prestige, goodwill or anything else—from offering to do the job for nothing. Whether that is what the hon. Gentleman calls giving time I do not know, but there is nothing undesirable about it so long as the ratio is maintained. I do not think it matters much how that particular service may be put on.

Mr. Ness Edwards: We understand that so far as religious bodies are concerned every one will get their correct quota and they cannot buy or get any more?

Mr. Follick: I still cannot see why Billy Graham, for example, could not buy time.

Mr. Gammans: They cannot get any more than their correct quota—unless we assume that the Authority is such an irresponsible and corrupt body that they would lightly overrule their religious advisory committee, which is an assumption that I do not think that anyone would take seriously.

Captain Orr: Paragraph 6 of the Second Schedule states:
No advertisement shall be permitted which is inserted by or on behalf of any body the objects whereof are wholly or mainly of a religious … nature.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Membersrose—

Mr. Gammans: May I take part in this debate? That relates solely to advertising which I do not think was the point which the right hon. Gentleman had in mind.
The next point is embodied in the next Amendment, that the Committee should
prepare and submit to the Authority a code of such standards of conduct as aforesaid
and secondly, that it should be submitted to the Postmaster-General,
for approval and thereafter to publish and secure compliance with the said code as approved with or without modifications by the Postmaster-General.
That point is covered already. If it is an advisory committee it has to give advice and therefore, the advice it gives


would be submitted to the Authority in some form or other as the Authority wished.
Now we come to the second point. The right hon. Gentleman asked me how we reconciled the power we propose to give here with the general power under Clause 4 (5). I would remind him of what is stated in that Clause. Under subsection (5), there is laid on the Authority the duty to consult the Postmaster-General as to the classes of goods or services which must not be advertised. I assume that it will do that when it has had advice from its own advisory committee. In the finality, the Authority must carry out any directions which the Postmaster-General may give in this respect.
That is the order in which the scheme will work, and this reserve power or responsibility of the Postmaster-General is absolutely over-riding. To my mind it takes precedence, because the committee to which we are referring is an advisory committee of the I.T.A. and it will advise what goods in its opinion should be banned.
What class of goods should be banned? The right hon. Gentleman asked how we secured accountability to the House. It seems to me that the accountability is absolute because, whenever the word "Postmaster-General" comes into any Clause, it means that he can be questioned on the way in which he operates it. As I understand the Clause, it will mean that the Postmaster-General can be asked in the House about all the points which are dealt with in Clause 4 (5). I should have thought that that was a complete guarantee that the House would have absolute control over what was not allowed to be shown by I.T.A.

Mr. Gordon Walker: How can the House know?

Mr. Gammons: By asking.

Mr. Ness Edwards: How does the hon. Gentleman redeem his pledge to the House that the code shall be made known to the House? He said on 20th May:
I would remind hon. Members that the whole code of advertisement has not only to be agreed by the Authority but approved by the Postmaster-General.—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th May, 1954; Vol. 527, c. 2334.]
Do I take it that, if it is approved by the Postmaster-General, a Question can be

placed on the Order Paper asking him to disclose the code?

Mr. Gammans: Yes, I cannot see how the Clause can be interpreted in any other way, since a direct responsibility rests upon the Postmaster-General for the classes of advertisements which are to be banned. I take it, and so does my noble Friend, that Questions can be placed on the Order Paper.

Sir L. Plummer: In column 941 of the OFFICIAL REPORT for 31st May the hon. Gentleman expressed his distaste at the idea of an advertiser representing himself as a doctor or a dentist or a nurse. He said that that would be distasteful. Suppose that the committee did not ban that type of advertisement, what right have we in the House to ask Questions about people who purported to be doctors or dentists or nurses?

Mr. Gammans: I should have thought that the hon. Member could ask the Postmaster-General why that class of advertisement had not been banned.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: If the Assistant Postmaster-General says that, it is very important, but does he not agree that whatever power he may have now is taken away by the concluding words of the new Clause?

Mr. Gammans: No, Sir.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: Of course it is.

Mr. Gammans: The hon. and learned Member has his own views, but the order in which this arrangement will work is that which I have described to the House and I cannot see any difficulty about it.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: Will the hon. Gentleman answer this question?

Mr. Gammans: I cannot give way again. I have given way to everybody up to now but I am sure that the House wants to get on with the Bill. The right hon. Member for Caerphilly thought that the Authority ought to have a special medical advisory committee. There is nothing whatever to prevent its having it. All that I am setting out to do now is to stop the gap as it were and to satisfy the House on one vital, fundamental point, namely that there should be a mandatory advisory committee on advertising standards and that on that committee the Minister of Health and the B.M.A. should


be represented, but there is nothing whatever to prevent the setting up of the committee to which the right hon. Gentleman refers.

Mr. J. Hudson: Is the hon. Gentleman not going to make any reference at all to the explicit point which I put to him, or to the Home Secretary whom I thought was going to reply, about representation on a certain issue?

5.45 p.m.

Mr. Gammans: I gather that the hon. Member is asking whether or not temperance societies will be represented on the religious advisory committee or other advisory committees. There is nothing whatever to prevent temperance societies being represented on the religious advisory committee or on any special committee that is set up if the I.T.A. wishes that, but we are not making that provision in the Bill at this stage.

Mr. Shackleton: As always, the Assistant Postmaster-General is having it all ways. When we were debating specific proposals for banning advertisements he said that was nothing to do with him. When we were talking about gambling he said that that was a matter for the Authority and not for him, that gambling news was published in the "Daily Herald" and so on. Now we are asking him to honour the undertaking which has been given twice to the House that a code of advertising will be prepared and that he will have to agree to it in such a way that the House will have opportunity to question him on it.
I cannot see why he cannot accept the Amendment to which my hon. Friend

the Member for Deptford (Sir L. Plummer) addressed himself. It is perfectly simple and straightforward, and it is essential in the sloppy wording of this Clause and of the Bill as a whole if an undertaking which the Government, and the Assistant Postmaster-General in particular, have given is to be fulfilled. I ask him seriously to consider the matter again. The Bill will not stay with us here much longer but will go to another place and his noble Friend will have an opportunity to correct matters there.

I regard the Clause as a vague attempt to white-wash the Bill and make it a little easier. I agree that the hon. Gentleman has fulfilled one undertaking with regard to the religious committee, but I still say that these provisions are unsatisfactory as they stand and that it would have been far better if responsibility for religious broadcasts had been left solely to the I.T.A. I should like to know in what terms the churches have signified their approval of this proposal. This new Clause does very little to improve a bad Bill.

Clause read a Second time.

Sir L. Plummer: I beg to move, in line 16, at the end, to insert:
and to prepare and submit to the Authority a code of such standards of conduct as aforesaid.

Mr. Shackleton: I beg to second the Amendment.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the proposed Clause."

The House divided: Ayes, 241; Noes, 261.

Division No. 160.]
AYES
[5.48 p.m.


Acland, Sir Richard
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
de Freitas, Geoffrey


Adams, Richard
Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Deer, G.


Albu, A. H.
Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Delargy, H. J.


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Burks, W. A.
Dodds, N. N.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)
Donnelly, D. L.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Callaghan, L. J.
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)


Awbery, S. S.
Carmichael, J.
Edelman, M.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)


Bartley, P.
Champion, A. J.
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)


Bellenger, Rt. Hon, F. J
Chetwynd, G. R.
Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)


Benson, G.
Clunie, J.
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)


Beswick, F.
Coldrick, W.
Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)


Bing, G. H. C.
Collick, P. H.
Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)


Blackburn, F.
Cove, W. G.
Fernyhough, E.


Blenkinsop, A.
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Fienburgh, W


Blyton, W. R.
Crosland, C. A. R.
Finch, H. J.


Boardman, H.
Cullen, Mrs. A.
Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Daines, P.
Follick, M.


Bowden, H. W.
Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Foot, M. M.


Bowles, F. G.
Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)
Forman, J. C.


Brockway, A. F.
Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)


Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Freeman, John (Watford)




Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Ross, William


Gibson, C. W.
McLeavy, F.
Royle, C.


Gooch, E. G.
Mainwaring, W. H.
Shackleton, E. A. A.


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon P. C
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Silverman, Julius (Erdington)


Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Mann, Mrs. Jean
Simmons, c. J. (Brierley Hill)


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Manuel, A. C.
Skeffington, A. M.


Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke-on-Trent)


Grimond, J.
Mason, Roy
Slater, J. (Durham, Sedgefield)


Hale, Leslie
Mayhew, C. P.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Mellish, R. J.
Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)


Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)
Messer, Sir F.
Snow, J. W.


Hamilton, W. W.
Mikardo, Ian
Sorensen, R. W.


Hannan, W.
Mitchison, G. R.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Hargreaves, A.
Monslow, W.
Sparks, J. A.


Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)
Moody, A. S.
Steele, T.


Hastings, S.
Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.
Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.


Hayman, F. H.
Morley, R.
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.


Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)


Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)
Stross, Dr. Barnett


Herbison, Miss M.
Mort, D. L.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Hewitson, Capt. M
Moyle, A.
Swingler, S. T.


Hobson, C. R.
Mulley, F. W
Sylvester, G. O.


Holman, P.
Nally, W.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Holmes, Horace
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P J
Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)


Holt, A. F.
Oldfield, W. H.
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)


Houghton, Douglas
Oliver, G. H.
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


Hoy, J. H.
Orbach, M.
Thornton, E.


Hubbard, T. F.
Oswald, T.
Timmens, J.


Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)
Padley, W. E.
Tomney, F.


Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Paget, R. T.
Turner-Samuels, M.


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Viant, S. P.


Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)
Palmer, A. M. F.
Warbey, W. N.


Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Pannell, Charles
Watkins, T. E.


Janner, B.
Pargiter, G. A.
Weitzman, D.


Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Parker, J.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Jeger, George (Goole)
Parkin, B. T
Wells, William (Walsall)


Jeger, Mrs. Lena
Paton, J.
West, D. G.


Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)
Pearson, A.
Wheeldon, W. E.


Johnson, James (Rugby)
Peart, T. F.
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Plummer, Sir Leslie
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Popplewell, E.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Porter, G.
Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B


Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Wilkins, W. A.


Keenan, W.
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)
Willey, F. T.


Key, Rt. Hon. C. W
Proctor, W. T
Williams, David (Neath)


King, Dr. H. M.
Pryde, D. J.
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)


Kinley, J.
Pursey, Cmdr. H
Williams, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Don V'll'y)


Lawson, G. M.
Rankin, John
Williams, W. R. (Droylesden)


Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Reeves, J.
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Reid, Thomas (Swindon)
Willis, E. G.


Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Reid, William (Camlachie)
Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)


Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Rhodes, H.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Lewis, Arthur
Roberts, Rt. Hon. A.
Wyatt, W. L.


Lindgren, G. S.
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Yates, V. F.


Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Logan, D. G.
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)



MacColl, J. E.
Rogers. George (Kensington, N.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:




Mr. Wallace and Mr. John Taylor.




NOES


Aitken, W. T.
Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Cooper-Key, E. M.


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Braithwaite, Sir Gurney
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)


Alport, C. J. M.
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.


Amory, Rt. Hon. Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Brooman-White, R. C.
Crouch, R. F.


Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.
Browne, Jack (Govan)
Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)


Arbuthnot, John
Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.
Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)
Bullard, D. G.
Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Deedes, W. F.


Baldwin, A. E.
Burden, F. F. A.
Digby, S. Wingfield


Baxter, Sir Beverley
Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (Saffron Walden)
Dodds-Parker, A. D.


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Campbell, Sir David
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Cary, Sir Robert
Doughty, C. J. A.


Bennett, William (Woodside)
Channon, H.
Drayson, G. B.


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Sir Winston
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. Sir T. (Richmond)


Birch, Nigel
Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.


Bishop, F. P.
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)
Duthie, W. S.


Boothby, Sir R. J. G.
Clyde, Rt. Hon. J. L.
Eccles, Rt Hon. Sir D. M.


Bossom, Sir A. C.
Cole, Norman
Eden, Rt. Hon. A.


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.
Colegate, W. A.
Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)


Boyle, Sir Edward
Conant, Maj. Sir Roger
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W E.


Braine, B. R.
Cooper, Son. Ldr. Albert
Erroll, F. J.







Finlay, Graeme
Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.
Ridsdale, J E.


Fisher, Nigel
Longden, Gilbert
Roberts, Peter (Heeley)


Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.
Low, A. R. W.
Robertson, Sir David


Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Robson-Brown, W.


Ford, Mrs. Patricia
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)


Fort, R.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Roper, Sir Harold


Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell
McAdden, S. J.
Russell, R. S.


Galbraith, Rt. Hon. T. D. (Pollok)
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.


Galbraith, T. C. D. (Hillhead)
Macdonald, Sir Peter
Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas


Gammans, L. D.
Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.


George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd
McKibbin, A. J.
Scott, R. Donald


Glover, D.
Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.


Godber, J. B.
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Shepherd, William


Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Maclean, Fitzroy
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Gough, C. F. H.
Macleod, Rt. Hon. Ian (Enfield, W.)
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Gower, H. R.
MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)
Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)


Graham, Sir Fergus
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)


Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Snadden, W. McN.


Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Maitland, Cmdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Soames, Capt. C.


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)
Spearman, A. C. M.


Hare, Hen. J. H.
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir Reginald
Spens, Rt. Hon. Sir P. (Kensington, S.)


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Harris, Reader (Heston)
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Stevens, Geoffrey


Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Marples, A. E.
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)


Harvey, Air Cdre, A. V. (Macclesfield)
Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
Maude, Angus
Storey, S.


Hay, John
Maudling, R.
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)


Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C
Studholme, H. G.


Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Medlicott, Brig. F.
Summers, G. S.


Heath, Edward
Mellor, Sir John
Sutcliffe, Sir Harold


Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Molson, A. H. E.
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Higgs, J. M. C.
Moore, Sir Thomas
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)
Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Teeling, W.


Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)


Hirst, Geoffrey
Nabarro, G. D. N.
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Holland-Martin, C. J.
Neave, Airey
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)


Hope, Lord John
Nicholls, Harmar
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Hopkinson, Rt. Hon. Henry
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)


Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Nield, Basil (Chester)
Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.


Horobin, I. M.
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.
Tilney, John


Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence
Nugent, G. R. H.
Touche, Sir Gordon


Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Oakshott, H. O.
Turner, H. F. L.


Hulbert, Wing Cdr. N. J.
Odey, G. W.
Turton, R. H.


Hurd, A. R.
O'Neill, Hon. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'rgh, W.)
Ormshy-Gore, Hon. W. D
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. Marylebone)


Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)
Walker-Smith, D. C.


Iremonger, T. L.
Osborne, C.
Wall, Major Patrick


Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Page, R. G.
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)


Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)
Perkins, Sir Robert
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.
Peto, Brig. C. H. M
Watkinson, H. A.


Kaberry, D.
Peyton, J. W. W.
Webbe, Sir H. (London &amp; Westminster)


Kerby, Capt. H. B.
Pickthorn, K. W. M
Wellwood, W.


Kerr, H. W.
Pitman, I. J.
Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)


Lambert, Hon. G.
Powell, J. Enoch
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Lambton, Viscount
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)
Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)


Langford-Holt, J. A.
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Leather, E. H. C.
Profumo, J. D.
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Raikes, Sir Victor
Wills, G.


Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Rayner, Brig. R.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.
Redmayne, M.
Wood, Hon. R.


Linstead, Sir H. N.
Rees-Davies, W. R.



Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Remnant, Hon. P.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirrall)
Renton, D. L. M.
Sir C. Drewe and Mr. Vosper.


Question put, and agreed to.

Clause added to the Bill.

Clause 2.—(POWERS OF AUTHORITY.)

Mr. Shackleton: I beg to move, in page 4, line 13, to leave out "with the Authority," and to insert:
made with the Authority and approved by the Postmaster-General.
This is an Amendment which I am sure the Assistant Postmaster-General will be glad to accept. The purpose is to require the Authority before entering

into a contract with a programme contractor to submit it to the Postmaster-General for his approval. The reasons why we think it should be submitted to the Postmaster-General are inherent in practically every speech the Assistant Postmaster-General has made except his periodic "Trust the Authority" speech. I hope that his answer on this occasion will not be just "Trust the Authority."
It will be a question of helping the Authority. The Authority will be faced


with the somewhat dubious task of trying to carry out the provisions of the Bill, and that will, of course, depend upon the interpretation which the Authority puts upon them, and that may not be the same as the Assistant Postmaster-General's interpretation. None the less, a number of very serious obligations are laid upon the Authority, and it seems to me that the Authority is likely anyway to go to the Postmaster-General and ask for his advice. The purpose of the Amendment is to make sure that he gives the advice and, furthermore, that he takes responsibility to this House for contracts which are made with the I.T.A.
I will briefly give some of the reasons why it is essential that the Postmaster-General should approve the contracts. First of all, there is the selection of the programme contractors. We know that the Assistant Postmaster-General knows the potential programme contractors a great deal better than the I.T.A. will be able to in the short time it will have in which to get to know them. The hon. Gentleman has met some of them and already has some opinions about who would be suitable. It would be wrong that the Authority should not seek his very expert advice based on his frequent encounters over lunch and at other times with the candidates for these jobs.
6.0 p.m.
The second point connected with that reason is the fact that he is pledged also, and so is the Authority, to achieve competition and to carry out certain provisions with regard to control. Here again it is proper that the Postmaster-General should be consulted; indeed, I believe that on reflection, when the hon. Gentleman has heard the arguments from this side of the House, he will agree that this is a reasonable and modest Amendment.
There are certain other provisions in the Bill that are dear to the heart of the Assistant Postmaster-General which I am sure he, his noble Friend and his right hon. Friends will want to see carried out. One particular proposal, which does not appear in the Bill but on which nevertheleses he has expressed a wish, is that the programme contractors should in due course share their profits with the I.T.A. We considered putting down an Amendment but, owing to the operation of the Guillotine, there was no time. However,

we rely on the Assistant Postmaster-General to ensure that this wish which is so dear to his heart will be incorporated in the contracts of the programme contractors.
May I remind him of his words in the debate on Government policy in regard to television development? He said he hoped that there would be
Some arrangement whereby the corporation, possibly after an initial period, will share in the profits which the programme companies are making."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th December, 1953; Vol. 522, c. 55.]
That was a precise suggestion, not merely a vague one that they would share in the blessings which came from the programme contractors. I hope, therefore, that the hon. Gentleman will indicate later whether that is the kind of thing he would like to see in the contracts and how, if they are not submitted to him, he can hope to ensure that his wishes in this matter are fulfilled?
This is a simple Amendment. We regard the legal provisions of this Bill as so extremely complicated that it will be unfair to expect the I.T.A. to bear the full responsibility for translating them into legal contracts. Therefore, it is desirable that the Postmaster-General, with the full weight of support from the Law Officers, the Treasury Solicitor and his own Department, should be involved in this matter. We in the House will then also be in a better position to keep an eye on what is done in this matter, to question the Postmaster-General, and to ensure that the purposes as declared by himself and other Government speakers will be fulfilled.
In view of the nod that I saw the hon. Gentleman give his hon. Friend below the Gangway, I can only conclude that he will not accept the Amendment, but I hope he will give further consideration to our proposals.

Mr. Ernest Davies: I rise to second this Amendment for two main reasons. The first is that throughout our discussions in Committee, and now on Report, it has become clear that the power of the programme contractors has been increasing steadily, whereas, when the White Paper was presented, and as the Bill was presented to us originally, the power of the Authority vis-à-vis the programme contractors was to be far greater


than it has emerged during the course of the Bill through the House.
If we are to maintain adequate control over the programme contractors through the I.T.A., it is necessary that the Postmaster-General should have the authority and the power to exercise that control. It is not enough for him to have the powers provided in the Bill to control and give directions in certain ways to the Authority. It is necessary that he should have direct control through the I.T.A. over the programme contractors, and it is only in this way that direct control can be instituted.
The second reason is not only that it is necessary for us to have the power to question the Assistant Postmaster-General in the House regarding these contracts, but that we shall have a certain amount of control over the Authority to see that it fulfils its obligations. The Authority has so much power given to it in the Bill, and it will be responsible for this new medium of commercial television, of which we have no experience and which nobody really wants except a few people who are forcing it upon the Government. It is important, therefore, that this new medium should be subject to control because, if the I.T.A. is to fulfil the obligations imposed upon it by the Bill, the Postmaster-General must have the power to control the Authority.
Inasmuch as the Authority makes its own contracts with the programme contractors, and does not have to submit them to the Postmaster-General for his approval, he has no direct control over the companies. I submit it is essential that the Postmaster-General should intervene in this matter. Only by accepting this Amendment will he have that measure of control which we consider necessary for this House to retain over the Authority. Frequently during our debates the Assistant Postmaster-General has pointed out where, and in what way, we can question him regarding the duties of the Authority and the carrying out of its functions. In my view the hon. Gentleman stretched that a little far. He was so anxious to satisfy the House that he told us that we would be able to question him about this and that which, in my view, is going a little beyond what is normally considered to be

Ministerial responsibility. I warn the hon. Gentleman, however, that we shall hold him to that. It is on the record now that he can be questioned over a large number of matters, and we shall put down those Questions and demand the answers. If the hon. Gentleman hides behind the iron curtain of no responsibility, as Ministers do frequently, we shall draw his attention to what he has stated during these debates.
As the Assistant Postmaster-General knows so well, we have harboured suspicions as to the personnel who will be responsible for the programme contractors. We have serious misgivings as to the type of person who will be put in control, and if our suspicions are justified, it is more than ever important that there should be control through the Postmaster-General, through the I.T.A., over those persons and we cannot delegate to them the power of operating their companies through the I.T.A. without responsibility to the Postmaster-General.
Therefore, we ask the hon. Gentleman to accept this Amendment and to accept the necessity for his approval of the contracts which the I.T.A. makes with the programme companies. Only thereby will we in this House have sufficient control through him of what is going on. In view of our suspicions, we see no reason why this responsibility should not be accepted by the hon. Gentleman through the I.T.A., through the programme contractors, to this House.

Mr. Mitchison: The Authority is to have numerous duties but no teeth. We shall have to examine later the efficacy of the false teeth which are provided in the Bill. They consist entirely of carrying out duties by means of contracts. It is important to know what kinds of duties have to be carried out.
First of all the Authority has to secure by means of the contracts
that the tone and style of the programmes are predominantly British.
That is a species of boloney—if that is a Parliamentary expression. It is only through the contracts that the Authority can hope to do so. It is only through the contracts that the Authority can exclude matters which offend against
good taste or decency.


The next point is the "tightrope" paragraph, that they have to secure that the programmes
maintain a proper balance in their subject-matter and a high general standard of quality.
That can only be done through the contracts. Presentation of news with
due accuracy and impartiality
can only be done through the contracts. I need not go through the whole of these extraordinary requirements, this mass of verbiage which constitutes the definition of the duties of the Authority. It is upon their execution of these duties and upon forcing the programme contractors to carry them out, that the proposed public benefits will depend.
Then there is the question of competition and of disqualified persons. It is through the contracts, and only through the contracts that the Authority can give effect to its duties to secure proper competition. It has nothing else. The Assistant Postmaster-General time and time again has refused to accept Amendments which would have given the Authority effective teeth corresponding to all these duties.
The position now is simply that the Authority, poor toothless thing, badgered about by the programme contractors, is to have cast upon it by Parliament a lot of duties embodied in all this verbosity. It is now to be left to stand by itself, equipped with its false teeth and only with its false teeth, to carry out all these things. Surely the Assistant Postmaster-General ought to protect his master's child a little. He ought to see that the contracts are both efficient and sufficient for the purpose. If the Authority is only to have false teeth the Assistant Postmaster-General ought to see that the Authority does not forget to put them in in the morning, and that the contracts allow the Authority to maintain some means of carrying out its duties.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: This is all very confidential. Will the hon. and learned Gentleman speak up?

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Mitchison: If we seek to ask the Assistant Postmaster-General a Question about the maintenance of proper balance and all the rest of it, he will simply retreat behind the Bill. He will say, "This is entirely a matter for the Authority. It is nothing to do with me that the

Authority has not provided itself by contract with any means whatever of carrying out its duties." In consequence, the main purposes of the Bill and such protection as it seeks to give to the public will have completely failed. The hon. Gentleman will say, "I cannot be questioned on that. There is nothing I can do about these contracts." We now ask him to assume responsibility for the contracts and to see that they contain proper provisions for the purposes of the Bill.

Mr. Gammans: The hon. Member for Preston, South (Mr. Shackleton) assumed so charmingly that I could not resist his Amendment that I hate to have to tell him that I can, and that we cannot possibly accept the Amendment because it would seriously detract from our trust and confidence in the Authority. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah."] I do not mind saying that dozens of times. The whole Bill is based upon it. There is nothing wrong, surely, in saying that we shall have confidence in the Authority that we are setting up.

Mr. Ernest Davies: We have no confidence in the Assistant Postmaster-General.

Mr. Gammans: I am sorry about that. After all the pleasant evenings we have had together I hoped that I might have engendered a little more confidence in me than when we started.
These contracts will basically be commercial, and it would be inappropriate for the Government to interfere with them, especially as many points have already been specified in the Bill and the Postmaster-General has to be consulted in certain directions. The hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies) referred to the powers of the Authority, but many special powers are given to the Postmaster-General with regard to the working of the programme contractors and I do not want to add to them. We must therefore take the attitude either that the Authority can be trusted to embody in its contracts the obligations which are laid upon it in the Bill, or that the Government should interfere in the purely commercial matters on which the Authority has to agree with the programme contractors.
I shudder to think what the business of the House of Commons would and could be like if every contract had to be


submitted to Parliamentary Question. It would be intolerable. These contracts are commercial. If every commercial contract could be brought under review in this House, it would be an intolerable state of affairs. We should have to consider such details of the working of the system as the hours allotted to each programme contractor, the arrangements for network operation, and matters of payment. Our Question time would be impossible.

Mr. Mitchison: Does not the hon. Gentleman recollect that his Department does just that thing in regard to the MacBrayne mail contract? Exactly the same thing happens in regard to the B.B.C. Secondly, are these really commercial contracts? How is the Authority to preserve the tone, style, balance, competition and all the rest of it if these are to be regarded simply as commercial contracts and yet constitute the Authority's only means of carrying out its obligations?

Mr. Gammans: I shall answer the second question first. The answer is that we regard the Authority as a responsible body and hon. Gentlemen opposite do not. If that is the view of the hon. and learned Gentleman, we must disagree on the matter. He has used a phrase about false teeth about three times in his speech. We regard the Authority as a responsible body entrusted under Act of Parliament with a very responsible job, and we believe that it should be allowed to carry out the job. The hon. and learned Gentleman does not believe that, so we must disagree upon it.

Mr. Shackleton: The Assistant Postmaster-General says that it is wrong that the contracts should be subjected to examination in this House. There is no suggestion in the Amendment that the contracts would be made public or laid before the House. We are merely asking that the Postmaster-General should be responsible for them.

Mr. Gammans: The hon. Gentleman is ingenuous if he thinks that, because whatever the Postmaster-General agrees to can be subject to Questions in this House. That is the whole point about it, and I think the House realises that.
With regard to MacBrayne's contract, I am perfectly certain that I can be asked Questions about it. Here we are setting up an Authority to do a job, and I suggest that we let it do it. For those reasons, I regret that I cannot accept the Amendment.

Mr. Gordon Walker: I really must say a word on this subject. On a number of occasions the Assistant Postmaster-General has said that we must trust the I.T.A., and then, when we question it, he says, "Well, we must differ between the two sides of the House." He differs with himself on the point. He tells us to trust the I.T.A., but the whole Bill arises from the fact that he himself does not trust it. There would be no need for a Bill laying down these complicated checks, balances and all the rest, if he trusted the Authority.
Why, if he trusts it, has the Postmaster-General set up a committee mandatory on the I.T.A.? If he trusts it, why has he inserted the Clause forbidding prize programmes? If the Postmaster-General really trusts the I.T.A., as he asks us to trust it, why does he do that? The hon. Gentleman says that it is purely commercial business, but, in fact, these contracts deal with types and classes of goods dealt with in Clause 4. They are referred to in the Clause just because they are more than commercial matters. They are the whole body and being of the programmes; the whole of the thing about which we are talking.
The truth is that everything depends on these contracts if the Bill is to make sense. Nothing can be enforced except through the contracts. The Assistant Postmaster-General says that the I.T.A. has great authority, but when we trace the transmission of this Authority down to what happens in the programme, we find that there are many weak links in that transmission. If there are any defects in these contracts, then none of the things we want and none of the things which the hon. Gentleman says he wants can be enforced, when it all turns on these contracts.
At no point in the whole of the Bill is the Postmaster-General in relation with the programme contractors. He is in relation with them only indirectly through the Authority, and the Authority can enforce its desires only by the contract.


Therefore, if, as we suggest in this Amendment, the Postmaster-General comes into relation with the contractors at one point, only then can any of the elaborate structure in the Bill be effective. The hon. Gentleman does not like the reference to "false teeth" in regard to the Bill. But he has created this great, fierce-looking watchdog of the I.T.A. and has then equipped it with false teeth. That is why we feel very strongly indeed about this Amendment, and why we must take the matter to a Division.

Mr. C. R. Hobson: I wish to raise two points The Assistant Postmaster-General's case would have held good if in the Bill she had taken to himself the same powers as he has over the B.B.C., but up to the present he has refused to do that. In the last analysis, as I have said on two or three occasions—and the Assistant Postmaster-General is agreed on this—the hon. Gentleman can exercise power even over the programmes of the B.B.C. In practice, that is not done, and, therefore, it was necessary for us to table this Amendment
Now I come to the hypothetical matter raised about asking Questions concerning the network over which the programmes are to be sent out. I do not see anything particularly wrong in that, and it seems

to me that it might be necessary, particularly if the programmes cause interference with other types of traffic. To take a more concrete example in which hon. Members on this side of the House are more interested, why should we not have the power to ask whether the fair wages clause is being operated vis-à-vis the actors and actresses who will be taking part in these performances? At the present time, we can do that in regard to any Government contract. Why should we not be able to do it with regard to the Independent Television Authority? That seems to be quite a reasonable proposition.

In this debate today, the hon. Gentleman has proceeded to build up the traditional house of cards and then to knock it down with his own arguments. There is nothing objectionable in this Amendment. It is an attempt to get in respect of the I.T.A. precisely the same powers as the Minister has over the B.B.C., and I am very disappointed that, on consideration, the Assistant Postmaster-General does not see fit to incorporate the Amendment in the Bill.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 263; Noes, 240.

Division No. 161.]
AYES
[6.28 p.m.


Aitken W. T.
Cary, Sir Robert
Fisher, Nigel


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Channon, H.
Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F


Alport, C. J. M.
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Sir Winston
Fletcher-Gooke, C.


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Ford, Mrs. Patricia


Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)
Fort, R.


Arbuthnot, John
Clyde, Rt. Hon. J. L.
Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)
Cole, Norman
Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Colegate, W. A.
Galbraith, Rt. Hon. T. D. (Pollok)


Baldwin, A. E.
Conant, Maj. Sir Roger
Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)


Barber, Anthony
Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert
Gammans, L. D.


Barlow, Sir John
Cooper-Key, E. M.
George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd


Baxter, Sir Beverley
Craddook, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Glover, D.


Beach, Maj. Hicks
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Godber, J. B.


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Crouch, R. F.
Gough, C. F. H.


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Gower, H. R.


Birch., Nigel
Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)
Graham, Sir Fergus


Bishop, F. P.
Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)
Grimond, J.


Boothby, Sir R. J. G.
Deedes, W. F.
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)


Bossom, Sir A. C.
Digby, S. Wingfield
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A
Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Hall, John (Wycombe)


Boyle, Sir Edward
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA
Hare, Hon. J. H.


Braine, B. R.
Doughty, C. J. A.
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)


Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Drayson, G. B.
Harris, Reader (Heston)


Braithwaite, Sir Gurney
Drewe, Sir C.
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. Sir T. (Richmond)
Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield)


Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)


Brooman-White, R. C.
Duthie, W. S.
Hay, John


Browne, Jack (Govan)
Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir D. M.
Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.


Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T
Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
Heath, Edward


Bullard, D. G.
Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)
Henderson, John (Cathcart)


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Higgs, J. M. C.


Burden, F. F. A.
Erroll, F. J.
Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)


Campbell, Sir David
Finlay, Graeme
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount




Hirst, Geoffrey
Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)
Shepherd, William


Holland-Martin, C. J.
Maude, Angus
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Holt, A. F.
Maudling, R.
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Hope, Lord John
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L C.
Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)


Hopkinson, Rt. Hon. Henry
Medlicott, Brig, F.
Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)


Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Mellor, Sir John
Snadden, W. McN.


Horobin, I. M.
Molson, A. H. E.
Soames, Capt. C.


Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)
Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter
Spearman, A. C. M.


Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Moore, Sir Thomas
Speir, R. M.


Hulbert, Wing Cdr. N. J.
Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Spens, Rt. Hon. Sir P. (Kensington, S.)


Hurd, A. R.
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'rgh, W.)
Nabarro, G. D. N.
Stevens, Geoffrey


Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.
Neave, Airey
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)


Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.
Nicholls, Harmar
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Iremonger, T. L.
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)
Storey, S.


Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Nield, Basil (Chester)
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)


Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P
Studholme, H. G.


Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)
Nugent, G. R. H.
Summers, G. S.


Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.
Oakshott, H. D,
Sutcliffe, Sir Harold


Kerby, Capt. H. B.
Odey, G. W.
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Kerr, H. W.
O'Neill, Hon. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Lambert, Hon. G.
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.
Teeling, W.


Lambton, Viscount
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)


Langford-Holt, J. A.
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Leather, E. H. C.
Osborne, C.
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)


Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Page, R. G.
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Loch, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.
Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N


Linstead, Sir H. N.
Perkins, Sir Robert
Tilney, John


Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.
Touche, Sir Gordon


Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Peyton, J. W. W.
Turner, H. F. L.


Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.
Pickthorn, K. W M.
Turton, R. H.


Longden, Gilbert
Pitman, I. J.
Vaughan-Morgan, J K


Low, A. R. W.
Powell, J. Enoch
Vosper, D. F.


Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. Marylebone)


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Profumo, J. D.
Walker-Smith, D. C


Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.
Raikes, Sir Victor
Wall, Major Patrick


McAdden, S. J.
Rayner, Brig. R.
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)


McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.
Redmayne, M.
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Macdonald, Sir Peter
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C


Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry
Remnant, Hon. P.
Watkinson, H. A.


McKibbin, A. J.
Renton, D. L. M.
Webbe, Sir H. (London &amp; Westminster)


Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)
Ridsdale, J. E.
Wellwood, W.


Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Roberts, Peter (Heeley)
Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)


Maclean, Fitzroy
Robertson, Sir David
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Macleod, Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Robson-Brown, W.
Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)


MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Roper, Sir Harold
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Wills, G.


Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Russell, R. S.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.
Wood, Hon. R.


Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hon. Sir R
Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas



Markham, Major Sir Frank
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Marlowe, A. A. H.
Scott, R. Donald
Mr. Kaberry and


Marples, A. E.
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R
Mr. Richard Thompson.




NOES


Acland, Sir Richard
Callaghan, L. J
Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)


Adams, Richard
Carmichael, J.
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)


Albu, A. H.
Castle, Mrs. B. A
Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Champion, A. J.
Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)


Alton, Scholefield (Crewe)
Chetwynd, G. R
Fernyhough, E.


Awbery, S. S.
Clunie, J.
Fienburgh, W.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Coldrick, W.
Finch, H. J.


Baird, J.
Collick, P. H
Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)


Bartley, P.
Cove, W. G.
Follick, M.


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Craddook, George (Bradford, S.)
Foot, M. M.


Benson, G.
Crosland, C. A. R.
Forman, J. C.


Beswick, F.
Cullen, Mrs A.
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)


Bing, G. H. C.
Daines, P.
Freeman, John (Watford)


Blackburn, F.
Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Gibson, C. W.


Blenkinsop, A.
Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)
Gooch, E. G.


Blyton, W. R.
Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C


Boardman, H.
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Greenwood, Anthony


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G
Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)


Bowdon, H. W.
de Freitas, Geoffrey
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)


Bowles, F. G.
Deer, G.
Griffiths, William (Exchange)


Brockway, A. F.
Delargy, H. J.
Hale, Leslie


Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Dodds, N. N.
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Donnelly, D. L.
Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)
Hamilton, W. W.


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Edelman, M.
Hannan, W.


Burke, W. A.
Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)
Hargreaves, A.


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)







Hastings, S.
Messer, Sir F.
Skeffington, A. M.


Hayman, F. H.
Mikardo, Ian
Slater Mrs. H. (Stoke-on-Trent)


Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)
Mitchison, G. R
Slater, J.


Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)
Monslow, W.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Herbison, Miss M.
Moody, A. S.
Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)


Hewitson, Capt. M.
Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.
Snow, J. W.


Hobson, C. R.
Morley, R.
Sorensen, R. W.


Holman, P.
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Holmes, Horace
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)
Sparks, J. A.


Houghton, Douglas
Mort, D. L.
Steele, T.


Hoy, J. H.
Moyle, A.
Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.


Hubbard, T. F.
Mulley, F. W
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.


Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)
Nally, W.
Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)


Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J
Stross, Dr. Barnett


Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Oldfield, W. H.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Oliver, G. H.
Swingler, S. T.


Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Orbach, M.
Sylvester, G. O.


Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)
Oswald, T.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Padley, W. E.
Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)


Janner, B.
Paget, R. T.
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)


Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Paling, Ht. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


Jeger, Mrs. Lena
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Thornton, E.


Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)
Palmer, A. M. F.
Timmons, J.


Johnson, James (Rugby)
Panned, Charles
Tomney, F.


Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Pargiter, G. A.
Turner-Samuels, M.


Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Parker, J.
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Parkin, B. T
Viant, S. P.


Keenan, W.
Paton, J.
Warbey, W. N.


Key, Rt. Hon. C. W
Pearson, A.
Watkins, T. E.


King, Dr. H. M.
Peart, T. F.
Weitzman, D.


Kinley, J.
Plummer, Sir Leslie
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Lawson, G. M.
Popplewell, E.
Wells, William (Walsall)


Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Porter, G.
West, D. G.


Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Wheeldon, W. E.


Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Proctor, W. T.
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Lewis, Arthur
Pryde, D. J.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Lindgren, G. S.
Pursey, Cmdr. H.
Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B


Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Rankin. John
Wilkins, W. A.


Logan, D. G.
Reeves, J.
Willey, F. T.


MacColl, J. E.
Reid, Thomas (Swindon)
Williams, David (Neath)


McInnes, J.
Reid, William (Camlachie)
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)


McKay, John (Wallsend)
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.
Williams, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Don V'll'y)


McLeavy, F.
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Willams, W. R. (Drolyisden)


McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S)


Mainwaring, W. H.
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Willis, E. G.


Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)


Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Ross, William
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A


Mann, Mrs. Jean
Royle, C.
Wyatt, W. L.


Manuel, A. C.
Shackleton, E. A. A.
Yates, V. F.


Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Short, E. W.
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Mason, Roy
Silverman, Julius (Erdington)



Mayhew, C. P.
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Mellish, R. J.
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)
Mr. Wallace and Mr. John Taylor.

Mr. Mitchison: I beg to move, in page 4, line 26, after "than," to insert "as."
This Amendment is to correct a grammatical error. It is probably the first, and to judge from the Assistant Postmaster-General's present mood, the last Opposition Amendment which the Government are likely to accept. I do not blame them for the slip—the Bill was obviously drafted by advertising agents.

Mr. Shackleton: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. Gammans: I am glad that the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) has found something really effective to which he can object. I am grateful to him for drawing atten-

tion to this grammatical error and I shall be pleased to accept the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Gammans: I beg to move, in page 5, line 26, to leave out from "under," to "section," in line 27.
This is purely a drafting Amendment. The Wireless Telegraphy Acts, 1904 to 1926, have ceased to operate as from 1st June, and Part I of the 1949 Act is now in force in their place.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 3.—(GENERAL PROVISIONS AS TO PROGRAMMES AND PUBLICATIONS OF AUTHORITY.)

Mrs. Eirene White: I beg to move, in page 6, line 3, to leave out "proper," and to insert "prescribed."
I think that it would be for the convenience of the House if we took with this Amendment that in page 16, line 45. This is really a final appeal to the Assistant Postmaster-General to take some action to protect British interests in the matter of recorded programmes. We discussed this at some length during earlier stages of the Bill and I do not propose to deploy all the arguments again. We then moved a very detailed Amendment which the Assistant Postmaster-General may have felt unduly restricted him. This time, we are moving an extremely restricted Amendment and I feel that it would be very much the wiser part for him to accept our suggestion.
The hon. Gentleman should make a provision in the Bill—either by the method suggested in the Amendment or a method of his own—to give himself and his successors at least permissive power to take some action if the proportion of non-British material used on television programmes becomes excessive. As things are, he has no adequate power to take any action; in fact, in a public speech made some weeks ago, his noble Friend the Postmaster-General suggested that if things went wrong he would have to ask for fresh legislation. Surely it is far wiser to arm oneself with powers at this stage, rather than wait for opportunities in this House, which are few and far between, to introduce what would then be a relatively minor Bill.
I urge the Postmaster-General most strongly to take permissive powers to prescribe a certain proportion of British material. Only today I saw a copy of a very long cablegram from the United States which makes it clear that the American film industry proposes to take protective action by making it extremely difficult for any foreign films to enter the United States. If nothing is done under the Bill the Postmaster-General may find that American interests will make it virtually impossible for any British film material to enter America while, at the same time, we shall be wide open to receive as much of their canned programmes as they wish to dump here.
The Postmaster-General is completely shirking his responsibilities if he refuses to take any powers to deal with this possibility, and I do ask the Minister seriously to consider this matter. If the

hon. Gentleman will not accept our Amendment, let him draft his own, but the Postmaster-General should at least have permissive powers to protect British film makers, script-writers, actors, artistes and other workers in the industry, who are in no way protected by the Bill as it now stands.

Mr. Ernest Davies: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. Gammans: I cannot agree with the hon. Lady's suggestion that this country would be wide open to films from overseas if we did not accept the Amendment. I suppose it is the aim of everyone to see that British film interests are properly safeguarded, and that our television programmes shall contain, as is provided for in the Bill, a proper proportion of British films. The hon. Lady may feel that we have not gone about the matter in the right way, but I must correct her when she suggests that we have left the country wide open to dumping by the American film industry.
We had a very considerable discussion on this matter in Committee, when an Amendment put forward by the Opposition laid down a quota in some detail, and the Amendment we are now discussing seems to be designed to achieve the same ends in another way. We have various objections to raise to this proposal. It would mean an extension of delegated legislation. It would place upon the Postmaster-General duties analogous to those which are now placed upon the President of the Board of Trade—of deciding what is a British film and what percentage of so-called British films should be included. The Postmaster-General would also have the unenviable task of deciding in advance, without any previous experience of how the system worked, what should be done about a quota and what ought to be prescribed. That would be difficult, if not impossible.
6.45 p.m.
We have every sympathy with what is in the hon. Lady's mind. We do not want to see this country flooded with films from America, or anywhere else, which have earned their keep and which might be dumped here cheaply, but we are convinced that the way she suggests is not the right way to safeguard our interests. I can assure the hon. Lady that


very considerable thought has been given to the matter and that we have examined every conceivable possibility. As I said during the Committee stage, some amending legislation may be required—dealing not with television alone but with films in general—and if it is we shall have to say so.
It would be very easy to forget the real interests of the unions and workers concerned, and to make a regulation such as the hon. Lady suggests, in a moment of enthusiasm, but the very danger she foresaw from American television would only be exacerbated if we accepted the Amendment, for we should be inviting retaliatory action. We should be providing the American interests with the very sort of reason they would like in order to press their demands. I read in the newspapers a reference to the cablegram to which the hon. Lady referred, and I was very glad to think that British films are making such inroads into the American market; that is a very healthy thing. But the only way to deal with this matter, short of a drastic revision of the whole format of the Bill, is to leave the matter as it stands.
We have laid upon the Authority the duty of seeing that the style and tone of programmes are predominantly British and that it shall put on what it regards as a proper proportion of British films and other recorded material. I suggest that we should be very unwise to go any further. No such duty is laid upon the B.B.C. Although I cannot accept the Amendment, I hope that the hon. Lady will realise that my refusal is not due to any lack of sympathy with what she has in mind, but because I am convinced that the method we have indicated in the Bill, at this stage of television, is a better way of dealing with the matter.

Mr. Ness Edwards: That is about the weakest case the hon. Member has put so far. He has scratched around trying to find all kinds of possible obstacles, when those obstacles already exist. If the Postmaster-General is to accept recommendations from an advisory committee to the I.T.A. a proportion of canned films from abroad will be broadcast, so that if a prescription against flooding this country with canned programmes in film is going to worry the Americans, they must already be worrying about it. The Bill already provides

that there shall not be an undue proportion of this type of programme.
The hon. Gentleman said this would mean "delegated legislation." Leaving matters completely to the I.T.A. is not "delegated legislation." Ministers are responsible for delegated legislation, but the hon. Gentleman says that we should leave things to a body that is not responsible to the House of Commons. Therefore, that excuse of his for rejecting the Amendment falls to the ground. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would have received the Amendment much more kindly, for he says that my hon. Friend's objective is his objective. Then why not express it in the Bill? Why not provide for it? The hon. Gentleman has made a very poor case indeed against the reasoned argument of my hon. Friend for her reasonable Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Amendment made: In page 6, line 37, leave out subsection (3).—[Mr. Gammans.]

Clause 5.—(CONTRACTS FOR PROGRAMMES.)

Mr. Gammans: I beg to move, in page 8, line 44, to leave out from "subsection," to the end of line 6, on page 9.
It would be convenient if we could consider at the same time my Amendment in page 9, line 17.
In Committee two Amendments to subsection (1) were accepted which drew more tightly the rules about disqualification. The first, which I proposed myself, was to the effect that persons having control over an advertising agency should come within the range of disqualified persons. The reason for the Amendment was that, without it, it would have been possible for a programme company to form a subsidiary of its own to carry on the business of an advertising agency. That we did not want.
The second Amendment, moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Hall Green (Mr. Aubrey Jones), had the effect of disqualifying any programme contractor that had as director, officer or servant an advertising agent, anybody employed by an advertising agency, anyone controlling an advertising agency, or a director of officer of an advertising agency. As a result of those Amendments, redrafting of the subsection became desirable in the


interests of clarity. That is the purpose of this group of Amendments.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 9, line 11, at beginning, insert "(a)."

In line 17, leave out from beginning, to end of line 22, and insert:
(b) being an individual or a body corporate, carries on business as an advertising agent (whether alone or in partnership), or has control over any body corporate which carries on business as an advertising agent, or is a director or officer of any such body corporate, or is employed by any person who carries on business as an advertising agent;
(c) being a body corporate, is under the control of any such person as is mentioned in the foregoing paragraphs of this definition, or of any two or more such persons together, or has among it directors, officers or servants any person who is a disqualified person otherwise than by virtue of paragraph (a) of this definition.—[Mr. Gammans.]

Mr. G. Darling: I beg to move, in page 9, line 26, to leave out the second "and," and to insert:
(b) if the Authority are not satisfied as regards any one or more programmes that there is not such adequate competition as aforesaid, it shall be duty of the Authority themselves to provide or to secure the provision of the programme or programmes; and
(c).
It would be convenient, Mr. Speaker, if we could consider with this Amendment the Amendment in page 9, line 38, at the end, to insert:
(3) It shall be the duty of the Authority to secure that no programme contractor broadcasts more than one programme at the same time to serve substantially the same reception area.

Mr. Speaker: Yes, if that suits the convenience of the House.

Mr. Darling: I have been pleading for competition in broadcasting and television for about 10 years now at every opportunity I have had. The more I see how things are developing the more I am convinced that I am right, and that there should not be a monopoly of broadcasting or of television in the hands of one body. I do not want the B.B.C. to have a monopoly of public service broadcasting.

Mr. Walter Elliot: What about the exclusive contract?

Mr. Darling: Now that we are providing for a different service I equally

do not want to see any one programme company having a monopoly of programme production in commercial television. During our debates on the Bill we have heard much about the virtues of competition, and I, and some of my hon. Friends too, have had to point out from time to time that it would have been an advantage to the Bill and certainly to our debates if the word "competition" had been defined. We have been rather mixed up about its meaning. At the end of our debates I think we ought to get it clear.
What viewers want is alternative programmes, and we want to see several different bodies providing the programmes, if the Bill is to be passed. On the one hand, there will be the B.B.C. providing the public service programmes, and on the commercial side there will be the I.T.A. The Authority itself will not ordinarily be a programme producer. According to the Bill and the Government's statements, it may produce special programmes, but, generally speaking, it will not ordinarily provide programmes. So it is necessary that what competition there is on the commercial television should be provided by the programme companies. If there is to be real competition within the commercial television system, the Authority must make sure that no one company and no one related group of companies operating a network shall have the monopoly of programme output. We think that, in the viewers' interests, it is wrong that monopolies should operate.
Having had some experience of employment in broadcasting, I think it also wrong in the interests of the staff and contributors that the monopoly element should exist. I think it is wrong that the B.B.C. should be the sole employer of people engaged full time in broadcasting and television. On the whole, the B.B.C. is a generous and tolerant employer. It sometimes slips, but, on the whole, it is a very decent employer. From the point of view of those engaged as employees in commercial television it will be far worse if they, having thrown in their lot with commercial television, have only one employer to whom to look. I cannot at this stage develop the arguments at length, but there is need for proper consideration of the question of who is to provide the programmes in the commercial television system.
7.0 p.m.
We have heard conflicting arguments about the amount of income that will be provided by the advertisers for the production of programmes. Some hon. Members opposite think it will be a very large income, and that there will be plenty of variety of opportunities because of the large amount of money to be available to produce programmes. There are some among the Opposition who think that that is a very optimistic view to take and that it is more than likely that the amount of money available for programmes will lead to an actual reduction in the quality of programmes because they will on the whole have to be produced on the cheap, as there will not be enough money available from advertising to do the job in a big way.
If we are right, there is a danger that there will not be a big number of programme companies coming into the business. Seeing that the whole purpose of the Bill is to provide competition in place of the present monopoly, and competition within the commercial television system, we think it is desirable, and indeed essential, that our Amendments should be incorporated and made operative so that a duty falls upon the Authority to make sure that there is competition in the provision of programmes. The Authority could produce programmes which would compete with a somewhat monopolistic programme company, if the monopoly situation developed as some of us anticipate it will; or in some other way there should be competition within the system, there being some body competing with the programme companies.
The second Amendment takes this a stage further. The wording is rather difficult, for "programme" has two meanings. However, the purpose is that where it might be possible when the technical resources allow to provide two programmes within, say, the London area, the two services shall not be placed in the hands of one programme company. We do not want one programme company to have the right to provide programmes for the two services. There will have to be at least two companies set up for the purpose.
Generally, the purpose of the Amendments is to make sure, by giving the Authority power, that there will be competition within the commercial television system. As this is in line with the purpose of the Bill, I am sure that the Government will accept both Amendments.

Mr. Christopher Mayhew: I beg to second the Amendment.
I cannot share the optimism of my hon. Friend the Member for Hillsborough (Mr. G. Darling) about the likelihood of the Government accepting the Amendments, but I am sure that these proposals should have the warmhearted support of hon. Members who, like myself, have watched with great interest the change of attitude on the part of supporters of competitive television on the question of competition.
There was a time when commercial television was called "competitive television" by hon. Members opposite. I notice that the phrase has become less and less popular on the Government benches. That is for a very good reason. It has now been discovered by hon. Members opposite that competitive television will not work and will not pay and that having programme contractors competing with one another is too expensive and wasteful. The term "competitive television" is dropping out, and we are having more and more indications that the Government are contemplating the establishment of a monopoly of commercial television in each of the three regions envisaged.
The slogans about competition and freedom have done their job. They have bemused enough hon. Members opposite to secure the passage of the Bill through this House. However, those were not the real motives behind the campaign for commercial television. Breaking the B.B.C. monopoly was never the real motive. The motive was to commercialise television and not to secure freedom or to break the monopoly.
One has only to study the first statements made in favour of commercial television to see that they came before there was any suggestion that the B.B.C.'s monopoly was evil and needed to be broken. The first purpose of the campaign was to commercialise television. The arguments about monopoly came later. Now that those arguments have


served their purpose they are being abandoned, and the Government are going to try to secure a commercial monopoly in each region under this scheme.

Mr. C. I. Orr-Ewing: I must put the hon. Member right on that. I have been concerned with this issue even at times when he has not been in the House. The first principle throughout has been to break the monopoly. Is the hon. Member still true to his line that we should retain the monopoly?

Mr. Mayhew: I am not denying that the first principle in the propaganda has been to break the monopoly, but I say that the first impulse was commercialisation and that the first impulse came from commercial interests, particularly American-controlled advertising agencies in this country. There is sufficient proof of that to satisfy any researcher. It was at a later stage that hon. Members opposite genuinely believed—I am not suggesting that they were not genuine—that the great issue was that of freedom and competition. It is only now that they realise that that is impracticable, wasteful and uneconomical, and they are beginning to drop their talk of competition. The real nature of the campaign is becoming clear.
The Popular Television Association, which is a body closely associated with the campaign for commercial television, is now openly campaigning for a commercial monopoly in television. Its official literature follows that line. The argument put forward is that television will not otherwise pay. We ought to note this as an historic moment. This is the first time that the argument that it will not pay is being used to weaken the safeguards in the Bill.
The argument that it will not pay is being used to secure a monopoly in commercial television in the regions. Tomorrow the same argument will be used first of all to open the floodgates to imported American television programmes. It will be said that commercial television will not pay unless American television films are shown. Later on, all the safeguards of the Bill will gradually be undermined by the argument that with them the service will be uneconomical. We should record that this is the first

use of this argument by the Government to justify the establishment of a monopoly.
First of all, the Government have eliminated the Authority as a competitor to the programme contractors. The Government have now put into the Bill provisions to ensure that the Authority will be hobbled and will not be able to compete with the contractors in the provision of programmes. The Government will say that they are at least providing competition with the B.B.C. I give them credit for that. I am sure that that is in their minds at the moment. Although they cannot secure competition between the contractors themselves and between the contractors and the Authority, they feel that they will at least provide competition between commercial television and the B.B.C. My guess is that they will not hold that position for a very long time because the commercial interests concerned are beginning to turn against the idea of competition with the B.B.C.
I have here a very interesting statement by a new firm, T.V. Commercials, Limited, which will obviously dominate the provision of the actual television advertisements in this country. In its brochure giving a preview of advertising by television in Great Britain we get a hint of future events with regard to competition with the B.B.C. The brochure states:
While the peak periods of viewing must inevitably be the evening hours, it is to be hoped that the I.T.A. schedule of transmissions will not parallel that of the B.B.C., for if two stations are operating at the same time the audience must be shared between them. It will therefore help commercial television to do an advertising job if the commercial schedules are longer than or different from those of the B.B.C. and consequently some, at least, of the programmes are on the air at times when the B.B.C. is not operating. This, almost more than anything else, could help to build viewership to commercial television programmes quickly.
Therefore, the interests, having successfully persuaded the Government to prevent competition between the contractors themselves and between the contractors and the Authority, are launching a claim that competition with the B.B.C. itself must also be prevented in the interests of profitability. How can we be sure that the Government will not give way on this point also? All the way along they have


given way on these points to the commercial interests concerned. There will not be competition with the B.B.C., for instance, on the transmitters and the masts. Anything that really seems to stand in the way of the economics of the programme contractors, the Government amend daily and change their policy accordingly. I believe that the question of the "Radio Times" will be raised in due course. In these ways, freedom, competition, all the slogans under which this campaign was launched, will be thrown overboard in the interests of a commercial monopoly.
I should like to commend this Amendment on the ground that the programme contractors under this scheme will be altogether far too powerful. They will be far too powerful in relation to the I.T.A. What are the sanctions which the I.T.A. is to have if these programme contractors have the monopoly? Let us imagine a programme contractor with a monopoly in the London area. How is the I.T.A. going to assert itself against such a programme contractor? In the last resort, its only sanction is to cancel the contract.
What will that mean? No one will be ready to take over the interests of this one monopoly contracting concern in London. There will be no one ready to step into the shoes of the contractor who has his contract cancelled. The I.T.A. is not allowed to own studios, and will not be able to fill the gap caused by the cancellation of the contract. The I.T.A. will have to provide the programme for London on its second television programme. The instruments of power which lie to hand for the programme contractors to fight the battle with the I.T.A. are very formidable indeed.
The power of the programme contractor in relation to the I.T.A. will be out of all measure far too powerful. He will use precisely the same slogans of freedom; he will quote Milton, as quoted in respect of the commercial television service generally. The same old slogans which have fastened commercialism upon us will be used to strengthen the programme contractor in the battle with the I.T.A.
I would say particularly that this applies in reference to London. London is by far the most important of the three regions concerned in terms of prestige

and capital and because it will probably be the first station to operate. For all these reasons, to have a single monopoly or even two programme contractors for the London area would, in my view, be creating far too great a power in a single hand. The monopolist who controls London television will be one of the most powerful men in this country, the Lord Beaverbrook of television; irresponsible, prejudiced, powerful, appointed in secret by a small group of shareholders—and all this system in the name of freedom, as we saw when this campaign was launched.
I would ask the Government to be perfectly frank with us on this point. If they really intend to prevent monopoly in the regions, let them tell us so and not hide behind the I.T.A. This is a tremendously important political and social question of whether one man or one single group of men shall have the commercial monopoly of television in a vast region like the London area.
If the Government mean this to happen, let them tell the House so frankly, and if not, let them write into the Bill a provision, such as my hon. Friend has put forward, which will prevent that from happening.

7.15 p.m.

Captain Orr: I do not want to take up much of the time of the House, but it is perfectly clear that the hon. Member for Woolwich East (Mr. Mayhew) has failed to read the speech which I made upon this subject when we were in Committee. Therefore, I feel obliged to refresh his memory, in view of some of the extraordinary nonsense which he talked about competition just now. He was just as nonsensical as he was about this question of the whole thing having been started by the pressure from commercial interests—something which has been repeatedly said from the benches opposite and which has never been substantiated.
We have not had one single word of substantiation or one single piece of evidence on this subject. The hon. Member who has just spoken did not produce any in his speech. I know that he knows quite a lot about these things and has thought deeply on the subject, but he has not got down to this question of competition in television at the beginning. It is worth while remembering that we are


dealing with a new experiment, with a service which is just starting, and with very limited frequency channels.
The number of frequency channels is limited, but they will not always be limited. That is worth bearing in mind. Although there are only a number of channels in Band III available, eventually the whole of Band III may be cleared, if some reasonable arrangement can be made for the users already on it. In the future, there is no reason why vast sections of the frequency spectrum up above, from Band IV, upwards, should not be opened up. Therefore, we have to think how exactly we are to achieve competition in the beginning.
There are in fact only two ways of doing it as I think the right hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Ness Edwards) will agree. Either we have to get a number of programme contractors together and say to them, "Will you form a national network—will you operate on the Monday, you operate on a Tuesday and Wednesday, and you operate on the Thursday and Friday, and so on?"; or we have to say, "You will have the London area, you will have the Birmingham, and you will have the Manchester area." That is the only way in which it can be done.

Mr. Darling: When the hon. and gallant Gentleman says, "You will have to do this and do that" does he mean the I.T.A. or this group of commercial companies?

Captain Orr: I was talking about the I.T.A. The duty is laid on the I.T.A. of securing competition. The only way in which the I.T.A. can do it is by either of those two means. In the first alternative I have mentioned, I am quite certain that there would not be true competition at all. If we get one or two or more programme contractors and say, "We want you to form a national network," that group together will have a complete national monopoly on any one day. That monopoly can only be broken by the setting up of a complete range of national transmitters.
The only way in which competition can be provided is to have one programme contractor to one transmitter. In the very beginning it may be a regional monopoly; it cannot be avoided because

of the shortage of the frequency space; but a national monopoly can be avoided.

Mr. Ness Edwards: Is it the hon. and gallant Member's contention that if the vertical method of allotting the transmission were applied—that is, one programme company to one station—that would give regional monopoly?

Captain Orr: No, that is not quite my view. I said that in the initial stages certainly it would be a regional monopoly.

Mr. Ness Edwards: And if in the initial stages, whilst there is only one transmission under the I.T.A.'s control in the region, the hon. and gallant Member would no doubt agree that it is a regional monopoly for that period. Would he not also say that if it is worked on a horizontal basis—that is, the programme companies combining together to form a network—that in turn is a national monopoly?

Captain Orr: Yes.

Mr. Ness Edwards: I am pleased to have that concession.

Captain Orr: It is a monopoly in the beginning in so far as there is a shortage of wavelengths. Remember that there is the B.B.C. as well. The B.B.C. might not advertise, but nevertheless it could hardly be said that there is entirely a monopoly in broadcasting. Nevertheless, if we are talking about commercial television alone, it is true that in that one region, one contractor has a monopoly.
If the other method—what the right hon. Gentleman calls the horizontal method—were employed, there would be a group of people having a complete national monopoly at the very beginning, I fully agree. But if the horizontal system is to be broken, if we are to move into the sphere of competition, the only way that the Authority can do so is to set up a complete network of national transmitters. With the other way, to take what the right hon. Gentleman calls the vertical method—one contractor to one transmitter—the regional monopoly in commercial television is easily broken by the setting up of one single transmitter.

Mr. Gordon Walker: Would the hon. and gallant Member, therefore, not be in favour of our second Amendment, which


says that one programme contractor should not get more than one programme in each region?

Captain Orr: Not more than one programme in one region—possibly I could be in favour of that.

Mr. Gordon Walker: The effect of it would be that a single programme contractor must not have more than one programme in one region or area of listening. If two programmes were available, they must be given to two different contractors.

Captain Orr: I should not go quite so far as that. When Bands IV and V are opened up, there is no reason why there might not be a multiplicity of transmitters, and then I should not necessarily like to say that one programme contractor might not, perhaps, have two transmitters as against somebody else's three, or something like that. There is no question of monopoly in that system.
Once the thing gets started, it may not be very long before we have another frequency channel available, say, for London. It may be possible that when another channel is opened up, the same channel could be allotted to Scotland and to Birmingham. In that case, as the Scottish station was opened up, it might he said, "We are able to have two transmitters in Birmingham," and the monopoly, if that is what hon. Members like to call it, would be broken in the Birmingham area, while that position might still exist for a while in London.
Obviously, the horizontal method is the only one by which we can achieve competition. There is no other way of achieving it between programme contractors. The idea that the Authority should let out one hour to one contractor and another hour to another contractor, and that sort of thing, is complete and utter nonsense. Anybody who looks into the thing or who knows anything about television knows that it is nonsense. These are the only two methods of doing it.
I should have thought it was becoming fairly obvious now that what the Authority will have to do in the first instance is to contract its London transmitter to one contractor, its Birmingham transmitter to another, and its Manchester and Scottish transmitters to other programme contractors. That is the only way in which it can be done.

Mr. Douglas Houghton: What has surprised me about the debates is the extent to which hon. Members opposite have left the defence of the Bill to the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr). The second thing that surprises me is the confidence with which he told the Committee and now tells the House what will and will not happen under the Bill. I wonder whether we are likely to know what special claim he has to both these important rôles in our debates.
The more one looks at the Bill, the more astonishing it becomes as a candidate for the Statute Book. The Amendments that we are discussing try to strengthen the duties of the Authority under subsections (2) and (3), both of which begin with the words:
It shall be the duty of the Authority to do all that they can to secure. …
something or other. In the case of subsection (2), it is the Authority's duty
to do all that they can to secure that there is adequate competition to supply programmes between a number of programme contractors independent of each other both as to finance and as to control.
Subsection (3) says that it shall be the Authority's duty
to do all that they can to secure that no programme contractor acquires any exclusive or other rights in respect of the broadcasting of any matter in sound only from stations in the United Kingdom.…
One wonders how we shall ever know whether the Authority has done all that it can do, and what will happen if it does not do it. The Amendments seek to give the Authority means of discharging this duty.
When one considers the wording of the two subsections that we now propose to amend and all the blah—there is no other word for it—in Clause 3, one surely is driven to the conclusion that we ought to change the name of the Bill. It ought to be "Television (Worthy Motives) (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill." The whole bag of tricks, all the worthy motives are here—"predominantly British." "nothing shall be included to offend against good taste or decency," "nothing that is offensive to public feeling" and all the rest. We have had all this out, but now we have another example of the same kind of thing.
7.30 p.m.
What the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South has just said confirms what my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew) said, that the only element of competition that will eventually remain will be the competition with the B.B.C. There will not be competition within the new Independent Television Authority. The hon. and gallant Member said that it is utter nonsense to suggest that one hour of programme time can be given to one programme contractor and another hour to another. He is, of course, only quoting, in extreme form, the philosophy which he holds that it is really nonsense to have two programme contractors doing two separate programmes from the same station covering the same area. That is where he will get in the end, I am quite certain.

Captain Orr: Captain Orrindicated dissent.

Mr. Houghton: The second Amendment deals with what is at present not an immediate prospect, that of having two programmes under the I.T.A. in particular areas. It is likely to have only one at present. The Amendment provides against the time when it may be possible to have two programmes under the I.T.A. in a particular area—in addition, of course, to the B.B.C. The Amendment says:
It shall be the duty of the Authority to secure"—
not "to do all that they can," not to hope for the best or express a mere sentiment and hope that these commercial racketeers will respect it. It is the duty of the Authority "to secure," and if it does not secure it will have failed in its duty, and if the Amendment is accepted, for once in a way something will be explicitly written into the Bill.
The first Amendment tries to give what the Government have been persistent in preventing the I.T.A. having, namely, the right to have programmes of its own and to displace, if it feels necessary, the programme contractor, and run the programme on its own. Numerous defences of that prohibition have been uttered by Government spokesmen from time to time, but how can the Government oppose an Amendment which seeks to put competition into commercial broadcasting, when the very first word

used by the Government in connection with this Bill was "competition"? An "element of competition" was the first term used by the Government in foreshadowing the introduction of this Bill. We want to put competition into commercial broadcasting.
The duty of the Authority under subsection (2) is
to do all that they can to secure that there is adequate competition …
but it is not stated what the I.T.A. can do if it does not secure adequate competition. The Amendment says that if the Authority is not satisfied—and that is an easy state of mind to determine—it can do something positive:
It shall be the duty of the Authority themselves to provide or to secure the provision of the programme or programmes.
It will be interesting to hear what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has to say when he tells us that these two Amendments would mess everything up, or that they are unnecessary or unworkable, or that there will be some special divine blessing resting on the I.T.A. which renders unnecessary all these unworthy suspicions or desires to give the Authority strength of hand as well as of character. I hope that at this late hour in the protracted discussions on this Bill we shall get some sign from the Government that they are as determined as we on these benches are to see that there is competition within what is alleged to be a competitive television system.
I sincerely hope that we shall have a modest degree of success at this late hour in respect of Amendments which derive from the most desirable of intentions; indeed, nothing could be nearer the desires of the Government, surely, in this Bill than to make competition really competitive, knowing for once that we as the Opposition are behind them in that desire. I beg the right hon. and learned Gentleman not to lose a most valuable opportunity of availing himself of our support.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department and Welsh Affairs (Sir David Maxwell Fyfe): I am sorry, after the eloquent appeal which the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) has made, that I am not in a position to satisfy him by accepting the Amendments. I shall, however, try to fulfil the other part of his request by dealing with the arguments


which he advanced, but I know that he will not think it wrong if, for a moment, I go back to his predecessors in debate and deal with some of the points which they have raised.
The hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. G. Darling), who moved the Amendment, did so from the attitude of mind of one who was doubtful whether the programme contractors would secure the amount of money necessary and whether they would, therefore, be able to function. That is a point which has been raised many times in our debates. If I may give the hon. Member a collective reference, I would remind him of the speeches which have been made by his hon. and right hon. Friends as to the immense amount of money available for advertising, when they were pressing that aspect as a serious part of the case.
Therefore, I do not accept that the difficulty which the hon. Member finds is a real one. I remind him of the provision in Clause 2 (2, b), which lays down that the Authority may arrange
for the provision … of, or, if need be, themselves provide, programmes … so far as may be necessary by reason of any temporary lack of … programme contractors. …
The object of that provision—I do not think there is any disagreement upon it—is to ensure that the public shall not be deprived of programmes altogether.
I wish to bring the attention of the House back to the Amendment which has been moved. Its purpose is to lay on the Authority the duty
to provide or to secure the provision …
of a programme if they are not satisfied that there is adequate competition among programme contractors. I have listened very carefully to the speeches which have been made, and the difficulty I have seen is that if one makes the assumption which the Amendment does, that there is not sufficient competition, that the programme contractor at a particular place is not providing a suitable competitive programme with others, the Authority must be prepared and ready all the tune to put on a programme itself.
Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite intend by that, and this is the real purpose of the Amendment, to put the Authority in such a position vis-à-vis the programme contractors that no reasonable programme contractor could operate—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] That is

my view, and I should like to develop it. Do not let us have a sham fight about this; let us have a fight on the real issue. This is the real issue: hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite know very well that, human nature being what it is, if the Authority is once put in the position that it has to provide programmes, except in the case, which I accept, of there being a breakdown, the Authority is being put in the most difficult position that any body can be in. It is to supervise, to control, to decide whether the programme companies are keeping up to the standards, and all the time—which is really what right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite want—it is to be in the position of being encouraged and inspired itself to put on programmes.
They know very well that were that situation brought about it would kill our scheme, and that, of course, is really what they would like to see. I think, therefore, that one has to deal with the point—and I will deal quite shortly with it, because we have argued it a great deal—about whether we really want, and whether our scheme really implies, competition. On the first point, one can only refer to what amounts, I am afraid, to an enormous number of words which I have spoken on the matter. I should like the hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew) to go back to my first speech which I made two years ago on this point, when I tried to argue it in as reasonable and objective a way as I could. I endeavoured to show why I thought that competition was desirable. One turns from that—because it is no use repeating these matters, and it is no good—

Dr. H. Morgan: Do repeat it.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: The hon. Member for Warrington (Dr. Morgan) is one of the kindest of colleagues but, as that speech, I am sorry to say, lasted for 57 minutes, he does not know what he is bringing upon himself.

Mr. Mayhew: The point I was making was that the attitude of the Government has changed. Whereas it is true that two years ago the right hon. and learned Gentleman stated specifically that there must be competition between the programme contractors, the Government have not said that recently. If he will


say today what he was saying two years ago—that there is to be competition between the programme contractors—I think that would be some reassurance.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: That was what I was going on to say as my second point, the practical point, about whether our suggestions will bring competition. I believe that they will. If anyone on this side of the House makes the clear and obvious point that the first competition is between the B.B.C. and someone else, that is not accepted. But that is our first point, as the hon. Member for Sowerby brought out in terms in discussing the first words of the Bill. I do not wish to go into the matter of Greek derivations but "monopoly," in its strictest sense, is one, and it is the beginning of a break in a monopoly if you have two. That, at any rate, is a start.
What is apparently worrying hon. Gentlemen opposite is that if the Authority decides to do it on the vertical basis we shall only have one arbiter in the various regions. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) put the answer to that which everyone knows. We are not dealing with a static position. We are not even dealing with a slowly dynamic factor in the world. We are dealing with a factor which is increasing and changing and adding to its powers almost daily—certainly monthly and yearly—and to take the position which will obtain under that disposition for some time as being in any way a statification of the monopoly position is, in my view, completely wrong.

Mr. Shackleton: What does the right hon. and learned Gentleman mean by the "stratification of the monopoly position?"

7.45 p.m.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: The hon. Gentleman did not hear me correctly. I said "statification" which is the making, the crystallising or freezing of the position as it is today—[Laughter.] I am sorry if I seemed to put an unnecessary "r" in the word. If I did, I apologise. I was using a comparison which the hon. Gentleman, as an accomplished debater, knows comes into practically every debate when you compare the dynamic and the static. I

am saying that this is dynamic, and I am sure that he will not disagree.
On the other point, I think it essential to say that we shall find the maximum of competition in the technical position which exists at the time. That is what we are going to do and, as time goes on, we hope and believe that there is no other possibility than that competition will increase.

Mr. Mayhew: The right hon. and learned Gentleman seems to be taking refuge in the technical question of wavelengths, and saying that all we shall have today is one programme contractor in London until there are more wavelengths. Will he explain what are the grounds of public interest for having only one person using one transmitter instead of two or three? We admit that it is less profitable, but what are the grounds of public interest for that?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: The grounds of public interest are two; that the public must have a second programme, and that that second programme must be given to them by someone other than the B.B.C.

Hon. Members: Why?

Mr. Mayhew: This is very important—

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I am sorry, I cannot give way again—

Mr. Ross: The right hon. and learned Gentleman misunderstands—at least we are giving him the benefit of that.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: The hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) may get a chance to speak later, and perhaps he will allow me to continue—

Dr. Morgan: But do not run away.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: The hon. Member for Sowerby appealed for both Amendments and especially, if I understood him correctly, for the second Amendment the object of which is to secure that no programme contractor should broadcast more than one programme in the same area. That is unnecessary. After listening carefully to all the speeches, I cannot envisage any situation in which the contingency against which the hon. Member wishes to provide is likely to arise. Regarding his reference to Clause 5 (2), I would say to him that


it would be useful if he would read the remaining words dealing with the subject.
It shall be the duty of the Authority to do all that they can to secure that there is adequate competition to supply programmes between"—
these are the words the hon. Member did not read—
a number of programme contractors independent of each other both as to finance and as to control. …
That is a clear duty laid on the Authority, and it is a duty which is none the less laid upon it because it is put in the form that it has to do all that it can. That means that in every part of the work it has to keep this point in mind. In my view, if that responsibility is laid upon the Authority it is unnecessary to lay down as meticulously as this Amendment seeks to do the methods by which it will be carried out.
As I stated in relation to the previous Amendment, the way in which competition will develop must be decided by the circumstances in which television itself develops during the next year or two. I believe that the specific need referred to in the Amendment is one which the Authority must clearly have in mind, that the Authority will carry out the duty laid upon it and that it is unnecessary to make this amendment to the Bill.

Mr. Mayhew: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has genuinely misunderstood my intervention and I wonder whether, on reflection, he will give a clearer answer. We all know that it would be more profitable to have a monopoly of the London region, but I asked what ground of public interest, apart from profitability, there is for having one programme contractor wholly in London and not two, three or four on the same transmitter.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I thought that the hon. Member was referring to the more general public interests which we were discussing, because in part of his speech he ranged fairly widely. I certainly did not mean to evade the point that he made. The public interest is that that is a way in which we shall have better programmes and that it is in that way in which we shall give people what is wanted—good, sound alternative programmes.

Mr. Ernest Davies: By monopoly?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: We are playing with words. Even the hon. Member for Kilmarnock knows the difference between one and two. When we have two we no longer have a monopoly. That, at any rate, is clear. We have the competition of the regional station, on the basis that we are accepting, that there is the B.B.C., and we have the fact, as my hon. Friend the Assistant Postmaster-General pointed out, that this is a growing discovery in which we are bound to have greater monopoly as the years go by. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I am sorry, I am told that I said "greater monopoly." I meant, of course, greater competition.

Mr. Ness Edwards: I have heard the Home Secretary make many skilful speeches answering the arguments from the other side of the House, but I have never before heard him trying to answer himself. If he will read tomorrow the report of the first part of his speech and, after a short lapse of time, read the second part he will find that in the second part he has completely destroyed the argument of the first part. I thought that in his speech he was justifying our Amendment in page 9, line 38, to secure that
… no programme contractor broadcasts more than one programme at the same time to serve substantially the same reception area.
During our debate we have often heard the unofficial voice below the Gangway telling us one thing, only to be denied later on by the Assistant Postmaster-General or the Home Secretary. Today we are told that whether there is a horizontal arrangement, that is three programme companies running a network of three transmitters, or whether there is a vertical monopoly, that is one programme company running one transmitter, in each case it is either a regional monopoly or a national monopoly.

Captain Orr: The right hon. Gentleman must not misrepresent me in that way. I said that there would be two important qualifications. One was that the word "monopoly" was only used in that context if one was talking about commercial television only and not the B.B.C. The second was—I am sorry I have forgotten what it was.

Mr. Ness Edwards: The hon. and gallant Member has made so many embarrassing confessions today that at last he has confounded himself. The fact is


that, with all the reservations, a television advertising monopoly will exist either in the regions or nationally, and is likely to exist for some time.

Captain Orr: The right hon. Gentleman has now reminded me of the second qualification. It is that we were now at the beginning of a service which was likely to expand.

Mr. Ness Edwards: I do not know whether that is a complete answer to the Home Secretary, who talked about freezing monopoly.

Captain Orr: It is exactly the same.

Mr. Ness Edwards: We must look at the facts, which are that the frequencies that are available are in Band III. Two of them, which are immediately available, are being allocated to commercial television. We may have an announcement tomorrow or the day after that another has been acquired and given to the B.B.C. So long as two frequencies are available, the position remains as it is—that we shall have an advertising monopoly, either regionally or nationally. When the Home Secretary speaks of the difference between one and two he fails to take into account that No. 2 is different in character from No. 1. No. 2 breaks the first monopoly but is in itself a monopoly, of advertising. Therefore, a new monopoly has been created in that sense. I believe that the Home Secretary shakes his head. Is he going to say that someone else is going to advertise?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: There is the B.B.C.

Mr. Ness Edwards: Are we now told that the B.B.C. is going into commercial television? The Home Secretary might answer reasonably. He knows that it is not. We all know that the B.B.C. must be non-commercial. Therefore, the only commercial organisation that we shall have will be the I.T.A., and in that sense it will have an advertising monopoly. Surely there can be no dispute about that.
I am astonished that the Home Secretary, who is usually so very courteous and helpful to the House, tries to explain away the fact that he and his hon. and right hon. Friends, under the cloak of breaking a monopoly, are creating a special monopoly. When he is asked to

provide for a breach of the second monopoly he refuses. He justifies the breaking of the first monopoly by the creation of the second. When we ask that the second shall be broken by the injection of competition and the creation of other things, he resists it. It seems to me that the right hon. and learned Gentleman cannot have both cases, because one contradicts the other.
We were told that we were being wicked, that we were giving to the I.T.A. power to set up its own competing programmes where it was satisfied that adequate competition could not exist. We were told that we were trying to ruin the programme companies. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman take the position that the I.T.A. must be completely under the control of the programme companies? Is that the position?

8.0 p.m.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: Not for one moment. The I.T.A. is there to control the programme companies.

Mr. Ness Edwards: The right hon. and learned Gentleman says that the I.T.A. is there to control the programme companies, but, after all, the I.T.A. will be completely in the hands of the programme companies because he refuses to give the I.T.A. the opportunity of setting up a yardstick to determine how much a programme costs. How is the I.T.A to charge programme companies for the use of its facilities? What yardstick will it have? In order to have balanced programmes, surely it must have some regard to the cost of production of programmes. Is the I.T.A. to have no independent yardstick of its own? Is it to be completely at the mercy of the programme companies in these matters?
It seems to me that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is creating circumstances in which the I.T.A. will probably lose money and the programme companies will get some fat pickings. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Hillsborough (Mr. G. Darling) that the I.T.A. is being put at an impossible disadvantage. It will probably make very great losses of public money. The greater its losses are, the greater will be the pickings of the programme companies. It will be a case of private enterprise thriving at the expense of the public purse.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: What difficulty does the right hon. Gentleman envisage in the I.T.A. fixing a proper economic rent for the programme companies? He could do it when he was at the Post Office; he could carry out a little thing like that without any great trouble at all. Perhaps the Authority may not be as good at it as he is, but what difficulty does he envisage?

Mr. Ness Edwards: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has put that very slickly. The present Postmaster-General does not know anything at all about artistic work. He does not know anything about the fees charged by some of the prima donnas, and I suppose there are more prima donnas in the theatrical world than there are in the political world. I should have thought that this was a sphere in which the poor Postmaster-General was at a most complete disadvantage.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I was merely indicating a standard for the Authority. Why does the right hon. Gentleman think that the Authority will have any difficulty in fixing an economic rent for a programme company?

Mr. Ness Edwards: I should have thought that that was fairly obvious. First of all, the Authority has to provide stations, and it may have to provide studios and outside cameras. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman has repeatedly said, this is a new field in which few people have experience. Now we are creating an Authority and expecting it to know beforehand exactly how much the costs in the new sphere will be.
However, the Government have got rid of the I.T.A. as a competitor of the programme companies. I cannot understand what the Government have in mind as to the way in which the job is to be done. What do the Government intend? Is it to be one programme company per station? Are three programme companies to have the complete network? Is there to be the further alternative of each station having three programme companies and no network, the three programme companies dividing the time between them and thus breaking the regional monopoly? Is that to be the position? Is it to be the duty of the Authority to provide for the maximum competition between the programme com-

panies? That is a simple question, and the two Amendments deal with it.
The second Amendment deals with the further point that we have got rid of the freezing monopoly. When a third frequency is available in the London region, is the same programme company to be allowed to use not only the first transmitter but also the second, or will one programme company be allocated to one transmitter or will it be given two transmitters? Our Amendment says that one programme company shall not have more than one transmitter at its disposal. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman wants to break the monopoly or not create an additional monopoly he must agree with the terms of the Amendment.
I should have thought that our two Amendments provided the degree of competition in commercial television about which hon. Members opposite have spoken so much. Are we once again to come to the conclusion that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite have used Tory Party doctrine and dogma to protect their private interests or the private interests of their friends and backers?

Mr. Shackleton: I have a request to make to the Home Secretary, and it is that tomorrow he should read the speech he made today. It will probably be rather a painful experience. I do not know whether at the end of it he will have a clear understanding of what he meant to say, but I hope he will do better than most of us did when listening to him.
His line today was quite different from his line on Second Reading when he very clearly said that the Authority would have to aim at getting enough programme Contractors to ensure real competition. On that occasion there was no talk about "statification." It did not become the Home Secretary to suggest that our Amendment was merely a device to do his beloved programme contractors out of their profits. In putting down the Amendment, the Opposition have been perfectly sincere in attempting to provide powers for ensuring competition which would represent real teeth and not the false teeth about which my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) spoke.
Once again, the Government will not provide these powers. They are prepared, if necessary, to forget their fine


words about competition. They are falling back upon a much simpler version of the words they uttered about breaking monopoly. They are not prepared to take steps to ensure that programmes are distributed more widely throughout the country, which the second Amendment would help to do. The Home Secretary's speech was one of the most disappointing and one of the most contemptible that he has made.

Mr. Hobson: The main ground for introducing the Bill was that it would break the monopoly of the B.B.C. The argument before us now is that, as a result of the economics of sponsored television, it is now necessary, in order to get a suitable programme contractor, to have a monopoly for that person.
The Home Secretary may think that he is breaking a monopoly by setting up another one, but I cannot see the logic of his argument. It is all wrong. I believe that the Government are looking a little further ahead in respect of the many technical changes which are rapidly taking place in television reception. I wonder if what the Government are doing is the result of further advice which has been tendered by the Post Office engineers concerned with this problem.
We all know that, in Germany in particular, it is possible to set up a transmitting station by means of which, provided that it is within visual distance of the people receiving the signal in Band III, on which the sponsored television programmes are to take place,

signals on Band IV can be received. It is only a short step now to getting the necessary gadgets available on the market to enable Band IV signals to be received. If that is what has been accepted by the Post Office, the situation is that more stations will be available and there will be more fields in which it will be economical for programme contractors to work. The Assistant Postmaster-General ought to tell us if that is what is to happen.

The fact remains that, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Ness Edwards) said, the monopoly has not been broken up. Whatever words come from the Government Front Bench, there is bound to be a monoply because the programme contractor will find that his activities will not pay him unless he has a monopoly. The practice will be such that there will have to be a monopoly. If, on the other hand, as a result of the development which has taken place already in Germany, it is possible, as a result of having channels on Band III radiated on Band IV, the point can be conceded. I suggest, however, that it is no good the Home Secretary coming to the House and rejecting our Amendment merely on the lines which he has argued this evening. The fact remains that no programme contractor will think it worth while to tender unless he is given a monopoly either for the London or Birmingham areas.

Question put, "That 'and' stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 263: Noes, 244.

Division No. 162.]
AYES
[8.11 p.m.


Aitken, W. T.
Braine, B. R.
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C


Alport, C. J. M.
Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Braithwaite, Sir Gurney
Crouch, R. F.


Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W H
Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)


Arbuthnot, John
Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)
Broomary-White, R. C.
Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M
Browne, Jack (Govan)
Deedes, W. F.


Baldwin, A. E.
Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G T
Digby, S. Wingfield


Barber, Anthony
Bullard, D. G.
Dodds-Parker, A. D.


Barlow, Sir John
Bullus, Wing Commander E. E
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA


Baxter, Sir Beverley
Burden, F. F. A.
Doughty, C. J. A.


Beach, Maj. Hicks
Campbell, Sir David
Grayson, G. B.


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Cary, Sir Robert
Drewe, Sir C.


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Channon, H.
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. Sir T (Richmond)


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.


Bennett, William (Woodside)
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W)
Duthie, W. S.


Bevins, J. R. (Toxeth)
Clyde, Rt. Hon. J. L.
Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir D M


Birch, Nigel
Cole, Norman
Eden, Rt. Hon. A.


Bishop, F. P.
Colegate, W. A.
Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)


Boothby, Sir R. J. G
Conant, Maj. Sir Roger
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.


Bossom, Sir A. C.
Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert
Erroll, F. J.


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A
Cooper-Key, E. M.
Finlay, Graeme


Boyle, Sir Edward
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Fisher, Nigel




Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F
Longden, Gilbert
Robertson, Sir David


Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Low, A. R. W.
Robson-Brown, W.


Ford, Mrs. Patricia
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)


Fort, R.
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)
Roper, Sir Harold


Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell
McAdden, S. J.
Russell, R. S.


Galbraith, Rt. Hon. T. D. (Pollok)
McCallum, Major D.
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.


Gammans, L. D.
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S
Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas


Glover, D.
Macdonald, Sir Peter
Schofield, Lt-Col. W.


Godber, J. B.
Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry
Scott, R. Donald


Gomme-Duncan, Col. A
McKibbin, A. J.
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.


Gough, C. F. H.
Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)
Shepherd, William


Gower, H. R.
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Graham, Sir Fergus
Maclean, Fitzroy
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Grimond, J.
Macleod, Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)


Grimston, Hon. John (St Albans)
MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)
Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)


Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Snadden, W. McN.


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Maitland, Comdr, J. F. W (Horncastle)
Soames, Capt. C.


Hare, Hon. J. H
Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)
Spearman, A. C. M


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir Reginald
Speir, R. M.


Harris, Reader (Heston)
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Spens, Rt. Hon. Sir P. (Kensington, S.)


Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Marlowe, A. A. H
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield)
Marples, A. E.
Stevens, Geoffrey


Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)


Hay, John
Maude, Angus
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Maudling, R.
Storey, S.


Heath, Edward
Maydon, Lt-Comdr S. L. C
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)


Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Medlicott, Brig. F
Studholme; H. G.


Higgs, J. M. C.
Mellor, Sir John
Summers, G. S.


Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)
Molson, A. H. E.
Sutcliffe, Sir Harold


Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Hirst, Geoffrey
Moore, Sir Thomas
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Holland-Martin, C. J
Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Teeling, W.


Holt, A. F.
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)


Hope, Lord John
Nabarro, G. D. N.
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Hopkinson, Rt. Hon. Henry
Neave, Airey
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)


Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P
Nicholls, Harmar
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Horobin, I. M.
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)


Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Nield, Basil (Chester)
Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C N.


Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)
Noble, Comdr. A. H P
Tilney, John


Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Nugent, G. R. H
Touche, Sir Gordon


Hulbert, Wing Cdr. N. J
Oakshott, H. D.
Turner, H. F. L.


Hurd, A. R.
Odey, G. W.
Turton, R. H.


Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'rgh, W)
O'Neill, Hon. Phelim (Co Antrim, N.)
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Hylton-Foster, H. B. H
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. Marylebone)


Iremonger, T. L.
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)
Walker-Smith, D. C.


Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Osborne, C.
Wall, Major Patrick


Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Page, R. G.
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)


Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.
Perkins, Sir Robert
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C


Kaberry, D.
Peto, Brig. C. H. M
Watkinson, H. A.


Kerby, Capt. H. B
Peyton, J. W. W.
Webbe, Sir H. (London &amp; Westminster)


Kerr, H. W.
Pickthorn. K. W M
Wellwood, W.


Lambert, Hon. G.
Pitman, I. J.
Williams, Rt Hon Charles (Torquay)


Lambton, Viscount
Powell, J. Enoch
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Lancaster, Col. C. G
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)
Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)


Langford-Holt, J. A
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O L
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Leather, E. H. C.
Profumo, J. D.
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Raikes, Sir Victor
Wills, G.


Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Rayner, Brig. R.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Linstead, Sir H. N.
Redmayne, M.
Wood, Hon. R.


Llewellyn, D. T.
Rees-Davies, W. R



Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Remnant, Hon. P.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Renton, D. L. M.
Mr. Vosper and Mr. Robert Allan.


Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.
Ridsdale J. E.





NOES


Acland, Sir Richard
Botlomley, Rt. Hon. A. G
Clunie, J


Adams, Richard
Bowden, H. W.
Coldrick, W.


Albu, A. H.
Bowles, F. G.
Collick, P. H.


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Brockway, A. F.
Cove, W. G.


Allen, Schofield (Crewe)
Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)


Awbery, S. S.
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Crosland, C. A. R.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Cullen, Mrs. A.


Baird, J.
Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Davies, P.


Bartley, P.
Burke, W. A.
Darling, George (Hillsborough)


Benson, G.
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)
Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)


Bing, G. H. C.
Callaghan, L. J.
Davies, Harold (Leek)


Blackburn, F.
Carmichael, J.
Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)


Blenkinsop, A.
Castle, Mrs. B. A.
de Freitas, Geoffrey


Blyton, W. R.
Champion, A. J.
Deer, G.


Boardman, H.
Chetwynd, G R
Delargy, H. J







Dodds, N. N.
Kinley, J.
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Donnelly, D. L.
Lawson, G. M.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Driberg, T. E. N.
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Ross, William


Edelman, M.
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Royle, C.


Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Shackleton, E. A. A.


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Lewis, Arthur
Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir Hartley


Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Lindgren, G. S.
Short, E. W.


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Silverman, Julius (Erdington)


Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
Logan, D. G.
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)
MacColl, J. E.
Skeffington, A. M.


Fernyhough, E.
McInnes, J.
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke-on-Trent)


Fienburgh, W.
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Slater, J. (Durham, Sedgefield)


Finch, H. J.
McLeavy, F.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)
McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.
Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)


Follick, M.
Mainwaring, W. H.
Snow, J. W.


Foot, M. M.
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Sorenson, R. W.


Forman, J. C.
Mann, Mrs. Jean
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Manuel, A. C.
Sparks, J. A


Freeman, John (Watford)
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H A
Steele, T.


Gibson, C. W.
Mason, Roy
Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.


Gooch, E. G.
Mayhew, C. P.
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.


Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)
Mellish, R. J.
Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Messer, Sir F.
Stross, Dr. Barnett


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Mikardo, Ian
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Mitchison, G. R.
Swingler, S. T.


Hale, Leslie
Monslow, W.
Sylvester, G. O.


Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Moody, A. S.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)
Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Hamilton, W. W.
Morley, R.
Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)


Hannan, W.
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Hargreaves, A.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)


Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)
Mort, D. L.
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


Hastings, S.
Moyle, A.
Thornton, E.


Hayman, F. H.
Mulley, F. W.
Timmons J.


Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)
Nally, W.
Tomney, F.


Healy, Cahir (Fermanagh)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J
Turner-Samuels, M.


Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)
Oldfield, W. H.
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Herbison, Miss M.
Oliver, G. H.
Viant, S. P.


Hewitson, Capt. M.
Orbach, M.
Wade, D. W.


Hobson, C. R.
Oswald, T.
Warbey, W. N.


Holman, P.
Padley, W. E.
Watkins, T. E.


Houghton, Douglas
Paget, R. T.
Weitzman, D.


Hoy, J. H.
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Hubbard, T. F.
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Wells, William (Walsall)


Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)
Palmer, A. M. F.
West, D. G.


Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Pannell, Charles
Wheeldon, W. E.


Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Pargiter, G. A.
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Parker, J.
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Parkin, B. T.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Paton, J.
Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.


Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)
Pearson, A.
Wilkins, W. A.


Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Peart, T. F.
Willey, F. T.


Janner, B.
Plummer, Sir Leslie
Williams, David (Neath)


Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T
Popplewell, E.
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)


Jeger, George (Goole)
Porter, G.
Williams, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Don V'H'y)


Jeger, Mrs. Lena
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)


Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Johnson, James (Rugby)
Proctor, W. T.
Willis, E. G.


Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Pryde, D. J.
Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)


Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Pursey, Cmdr. H.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Rankin, John
Wyatt, W. L.


Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Reeves, J.
Yates, V. F.


Keenan, W.
Reid, Thomas (Swindon)
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Kenyon, C.
Reid, William (Camlachie)



Key, Rt. Hon. C. W
Rhodes, H.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


King, Dr. H. M.
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.
Mr. Holmes and Mr. Wallace.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Reginald Manningham-Buller): I beg to move, in page 10, line 2, after "provisions," to insert:
(including provisions for the purposes set out in the Third Schedule to this Act).
This is the first of a series of Amendments which deal with two particular points. The other Amendments are in page 10, lines 7, 11, 16, 22, 29 and 36, and in page 11, line 17.
During the Committee proceedings, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, West (Mr. Simon) said it was objectionable that a penalty for breach of contract by a programme contractor should be determined by the Authority. The Bill at present provides for the question whether or not there was a breach of contract to be determined by an arbitrator, but the Authority is to assess the penalty.

Mr. Shackleton: I take it that most of the later Amendments mentioned by the right hon. and learned Gentleman are consequential on the first two.

The Solicitor-General: It is the other way. The earlier Amendments are paving the way for those that come at the end. They are to meet not only the points made by my hon. and learned Friend but also other points stressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Esher (Mr. Robson Brown). After considering what my hon. Friends said, the Government have decided that the change should be made, and that the amount of penalty should be determined, in the event of dispute, by an arbitrator. If the Amendment is accepted, the Authority will allege a breach and demand a penalty. If the programme contractor disputes the breach, the case goes to arbitration, and if he wishes to dispute the penalty demanded by the Authority, that will now go to arbitration also.
This change is effected by the Amendment to line 29, which substitutes for a penalty
exigible by virtue of this subsection
the phrase
which may be demanded by the Authority.
Linked with that Amendment is the one in line 36, which inserts, after "aforesaid":
or as to the amount demanded by way of penalty in respect of any such breach.
These Amendments do not alter the maximum amount imposable as penalty.
The other important point raised by this series of Amendments is contained in the Amendment to page 11, line 17, which adds a new subsection to Clause 5. A suggestion was put forward in Committee that subsections (5) and (6) eliminated all rights at common law in respect of breaches of contract. I do not think that view was well-founded. For instance, the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) said:
Under these two subsections they are to be put above the law."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st June, 1954; Vol. 528, c. 1137.]
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, West suggested that those subsections excluded the ordinary processes of law. We do not want there to be any doubt, and that is the reason for the proposed addition of subsection

(7), to make it clear that the course proposed in subsections (5) and (6) which the Authority may take if it wishes are alternative to the ordinary rights at common law.
If the Amendment is accepted, the Authority will be able to bring actions to recover unpaid sums due from programme contractors, damages for breach of contract, or to seek injunctions, and will be able to exercise the right of determining a contract. I hope that we shall remove doubts on these points as well.

Mr. Mitchison: At the moment we are discussing the Amendment in page 10, line 2. There are other Government Amendments, which are closely connected with Amendments from this side of the House. Our Amendment in page 11 to leave out lines 12 to 17, will no doubt have some connection with the new subsection which is intended to follow at the end of line 17. However that may be. I shall content myself for the moment by saying that we on this side of the House dislike the Amendment now moved in page 10, line 2, and wish to preserve our right to discuss these other points as they arise.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Rhys Hopkin Morris): The other Amendments will be called as we come to them later on.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. J. E. S. Simon: My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, when we discussed this Clause and when, I think, there was considerable disquiet in all parts of the Committee as to its provisions, merely contented himself with the very safe formula that he would look at what had been said that day. It seems to me that both the Home Secretary and my right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General have been far better in their performance than in their promise, because I am completely satisfied—and I think I speak for my hon. Friends in this respect—that the points raised have been met.
In our view, there were two grave objections to the Clause as originally drafted. The first was that there was power vested in a public corporation—one of the two contracting parties—to fine the other contracting party up to £500 for breach of a contract, however trivial. Secondly. there was the point


made by the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison), with which we found ourselves in agreement, that a breach of contract, however grave, even if going to the root of the contract, did not give the Authority the right to rescind the contract unless it had been preceded by two previous breaches.
So far as both those points are concerned, the Amendment now moved by my right hon. and learned Friend meets

the objections raised, and all that it remains for me to do is to express my gratitude and thanks with which I know that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bolton, East (Mr. Philip Bell) would desire to be associated, to the Government for having met our point so completely.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 263; Noes, 245.

Division No. 163.]
AYES
[8.32 p.m.


Aitken, W. T.
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Linstead, Sir H. N.


Alport, C. J. M.
Erroll, F. J
Llewellyn, D. T.


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Finlay, Graeme
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)


Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.
Fisher, Nigel
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)


Arbuthnot, John
Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F
Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)
Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Longden, Gilbert


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Ford, Mrs. Patricia
Low, A. R. W.


Baldwin, A. E.
Fort, R.
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)


Barlow, Sir John
Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)


Baxter, Sir Beverley
Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Beach, Maj. Hicks
Galbraith, Rt. Hon. T. D. (Potlok)
McAdden, S. J.


Bell, Phillip (Bolton, E.)
Galbraith, T G. D. (Hillhead)
McCallum, Major D.


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Gammans, L. D.
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Glover, D.
Macdonald, Sir Peter


Bennett, William (Woodside)
Godber, J. B.
Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Gomme-Duncan, Col A
McKibbin, A. J.


Birch, Nigel
Gough, C. F. H.
Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)


Bishop, F. P.
Gower, H. R.
Maclean, Fitzroy


Boothby, Sir R. J. G.
Graham, Sir Fergus
Macleod, Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfield, W.)


Bossom, Sir A. C.
Grimond, J.
MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)


Boyle, Sir Edward
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)


Braine, B. R.
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)


Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Hare, Hon. J. H.
Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)


Braithwaite, Sir Gurney
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir Reginald


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Markham, Major Sir Frank


Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Marlowe, A. A. H.


Brooman-White, R. C.
Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield)
Marples, A. E.


Browne, Jack (Govan)
Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)


Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.
Hay, John
Maude, Angus


Bullard, D. G.
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Maudling, R.


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Heath, Edward
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.


Burden, F. F. A.
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Medlicott, Brig. F.


Campbell, Sir David
Higgs, J. M. C.
Mellor, Sir John


Cary, Sir Robert
Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)
Molson, A. H. E.


Channon, H.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter


Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Hirst, Geoffrey
Moore, Sir Thomas


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)
Holland-Martin, C. J.
Morrison, John (Salisbury)


Clyde, Rt. Hon. J. L.
Holt, A. F.
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.


Cole, Norman
Hope, Lord John
Nabarro, G. D. N.


Colegate, W. A.
Hopkinson, Rt. Hon. Henry
Neave, Airey


Conant, Maj. Sir Roger
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Nicholls, Harmar


Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert
Horobin, I. M.
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Nield, Basil (Chester)


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Nugent, G. R. H.


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Hulbert, Wing Cdr. N. J.
Oakshott, H. D.


Crouch, R. F.
Hurd, A. R.
Odey, G. W.


Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'rgh, W.)
O'Neill, Hon. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)


Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)
Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.


Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)
Iremonger, T. L.
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Deedes, W. F.
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)


Digby, S. Wingfield
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Osborne, C.


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)
Page, R. G.


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E McA
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.


Doughty, C. J. A.
Kaberry, D.
Perkins, Sir Robert


Drayson, G. B.
Kerby, Capt. H. B.
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.


Drewe, Sir C.
Kerr, H. W.
Peyton, J. W. W.


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. Sir T. (Richmond)
Lambert, Hon. G.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Duncan, Capt. J. A. L
Lambion, Viscount
Pitman, I. J.


Duthie, W S.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Powell, J. Enoch


Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir D. M
Langford-Holt, J. A.
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)


Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
Leather, E. H. C.
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.


Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H
Profumo, J. D.




Raikes, Sir Victor
Spearman, A. C. M.
Vane, W. M. F.


Rayner, Brig. R.
Speir, R. M.
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Redmayne, M.
Spens, Rt. Hon. Sir P. (Kensington, S.)
Vosper, D. F.


Rees-Davies, W. R.
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Remnant, Hon. P.
Stevens, Geoffrey
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. Marylebone)


Renton, D. L. M
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)
Walker-Smith, D. C.


Ridsdale, J. E.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.
Wall, Major Patrick


Robertson, Sir David
Storey, S.
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)


Robson-Brown, W.
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)
Studholme, H. G
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


Roper, Sir Harold
Summers, G. S.
Watkinson, H. A.


Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Sutcliffe, Sir Harold
Webbe, Sir H. (London &amp; Westminster)


Russell, R. S.
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Wellwood, W.


Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)
Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)


Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas
Teeling, W.
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)
Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)


Scott, R. Donald
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Shepherd, William
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)
Wills, G.


Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Smithers, Peter (Winchester)
Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.
Wood, Hon. R.


Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)
Tilney, John



Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)
Touche, Sir Gordon
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Snadden, W. McN.
Turner, H. F. L
Mr. Robert Allan and Mr. Legh.


Soames, Capt. C
Turton, R. H.





NOES


Acland, Sir Richard
Fienburgh, W.
Lawson, G. M.


Adams, Richard
Finch, H. J.
Lee, Frederick (Newton)


Albu, A. H.
Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)


Allan, Scholefield (Crewe)
Follick, M.
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)


Awbery, S. S.
Foot, M. M.
Lewis, Arthur


Bacon, Miss Alice
Forman, J. C.
Lindgren, G. S.


Baird, J.
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.


Bartley, P.
Freeman, John (Watford)
Logan, D. G.


Benson, G.
Gibson, C. W.
MacColl, J. E.


Beswick, F.
Gooch, E. G.
Mclnnes, J.


Bing, G. H. C
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
McKay, John (Wallsend)


Blackburn, F.
Greenwood, Anthony
McLeavy, F.


Blenkinsop, A.
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.


Blyton, W. R.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Mainwaring, W. H.


Boardman, H.
Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G
Hale, Leslie
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)


Bowden, H. W.
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Mann, Mrs. Jean


Brockway, A. F.
Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)
Manuel, A. C.


Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Hamilton, W. W.
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Hannan, W.
Mason, Roy


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Hargreaves, A.
Mayhew, C. P.


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)
Mellish, R. J.


Burke, W. A.
Hastings, S.
Messer, Sir F.


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)
Hayman, F. H.
Mikardo, Ian


Callaghan, L. J.
Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)
Mitchison, G. R.


Carmichael, J.
Healy, Cahir (Fermanagh)
Monslow, W.


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)
Moody, A. S.


Champion, A. J.
Hewitson, Capt. M.
Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.


Chetwynd, G. R
Hobson, C. R.
Morley, R.


Clunie, J.
Holman, P.
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)


Coldrick, W.
Holmes, Horace
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)


Collick, P. H
Houghton, Douglas
Mort, D. L.


Cove, W. G.
Hoy, J. H.
Moyle, A.


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Hubbard, T. F.
Mulley, F. W.


Crosland, C. A. R.
Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)
Nally, W.


Cullen, Mrs. A.
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J


Daines, P.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
O'Brien, T.


Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Oldfield, W. H.


Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Oliver, G. H.


Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Orbach, M.


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)
Oswald, T.


Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Padley, W. E


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Janner, B.
Paget, R. T.


Deer, G.
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)


Delargy, H. J.
Jeger, George (Goole)
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)


Dodds, N. N.
Jeger, Mrs. Lena
Palmer, A. M. F.


Donnelly, D. L.
Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)
Pannell, Charles


Driberg, T. E. N.
Johnson, James (Rugby)
Pargiter, G. A.


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)
Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Parker, J.


Edelman, M.
Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Nam, S.)
Parkin, B. T


Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Paton, J.


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Pearson, A.


Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Keenan, W.
Peart, T. F.


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Kenyon, C.
Plummer, Sir Leslie


Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Porter, G.


Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)
King, Dr. H. M.
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Fernyhough, E.
Kinley, J.
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)







Proctor, W. T.
Sorensen, R. W.
Weitzman, D.


Pryde, D. J.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Pursey, Cmdr. H.
Sparks, J. A.
Wells, William (Walsall)


Rankin, John
Steele, T.
West, D. G.


Reeves, J.
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.
Wheeldon, W. E.


Reid, Thomas (Swindon)
Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Reid, William (Camlachie)
Stross, Dr. Barnett
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Rhodes, H.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Robens, Rt. Hon. A.
Swingler, S. T.
Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.


Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Sylvester, G. O.
Wilkins, W. A.


Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Willey, F. T.


Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Taylor, John (West Lothian)
Williams, David (Neath)


Ross, William
Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)


Royle, C.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)
Williams, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Don V'll'y)


Shackleton, E. A. A.
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)
Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)


Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir Hartley
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Short, E. W.
Thornton, E.
Willis, E. G.


Silverman, Julius (Erdington)
Timmons, J.
Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)


Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Tonmey, F.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)
Turner-Samuels, M.
Wyatt, W. L.


Skeffington, A. M.
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn
Yates, V. F.


Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke-on-Trent)
Viant, S. P.
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Slater, J. (Durham, Sedgefield)
Wade, D. W.



Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Wallace, H. W.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)
Warbey, W. N.
Mr. Popplewell and


Snow, J. W.
Watkins, T. E.
Mr. Arthur Allen.

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, in page 10, line 7, to leave out from "contractor," to the end of line 10, and to insert:
Provided that the Authority shall not be enabled by any such contract to exercise any such power as is referred to in the said Third Schedule unless they are satisfied that it is necessary to do so having regard to a breach which they apprehend on the part of the programme contractor of any provision included in the contract in pursuance of this subsection.
This is a purely drafting Amendment, and merely moves to another part of the Clause what was provided in paragraph (i) of the proviso.
Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill," put, and negatived.
Question proposed, "That the proposed words be there inserted in the Bill."

Mr. Mitchison: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, after the first "in," to insert:
paragraphs 1 and 2 of.
It may very well be that from the point of view of the right hon. and learned Gentleman his Amendment is pure drafting. It does, however, seem to raise a somewhat important question in connection with the powers of the Authority. The effect of my Amendment to the proposed Amendment is to limit to some extent the limitation which it is proposed to put upon the powers of the Authority. I should like to discuss the other Amendment to the proposed Amendment, to leave out from "necessary," to the end, and to add:
or expedient to do so in order to comply, or secure compliance, with the provisions of this Act.

This is rather broader in terms and gives yet a little more freedom to the Authority.
The intention of the right hon. and learned Gentleman is that the Authority should not exercise any of its powers under the Third Schedule except in anticipation of the breach of a contract made with a programme contractor. When one turns to the Third Schedule one finds that these powers are, first, to require the provision of scripts and so on in advance; secondly, the power to require records to be made; and, thirdly and fourthly—two considerably more sweeping powers—to forbid broadcasting and to give prior approval to what is to be broadcast. What the Government propose is not to allow any of these powers to be exercised except in anticipation of a breach of contract. By the last Amendment they have put into the Clause a special reference to the provisions in the Third Schedule to lead up to this proposed Amendment.
8.45 p.m.
We say that there is and should be no reason whatever for any limitation on the general power of the Authority to put into the contract whatever is "necessary or expedient" to secure "compliance with the provisions of this Act." I am sorry to disturb the Assistant Postmaster-General again, but we have reached the stage now of having a look at the false teeth in this Measure. We begin by saying that the Authority can do anything it likes to secure compliance with the provisions of the Bill—to secure a tone and style predominantly British, to secure a nice balance, free competition, and independent contractors. All the public's


safeguards depend on this subsection and the next. Then the Government say the powers are to be exercised only when the Authority knows that there is going to be a spot of trouble, or thinks there is. Indeed, before it can do anything at all there has to be, not a spot of trouble, but a whole measles of it.
Be that as it may, we are at the moment considering whether or not it can be allowed to exercise these powers judiciously instead of having to anticipate a breach of contract. To deprive the Authority of the Third Schedule power,
to forbid the broadcasting of any matter, or class or description of matter,
and to deprive it of the power to require its own previous approval of what is to be broadcast, is to shackle it in an unreasonable way.
If these powers were to be exercised in any arbitrary fashion, one might say that it ought to be shackled, but we have been told by the Assistant Postmaster-General in his last speech but one, I think, and in his last speech but five and in several other of his speeches, that what we have to do is to trust the Authority, that it will be a noble, white body, that we can be sure it will do its job rightly, and that we can rely on it implicitly to carry out the provisions of the Bill. Why on earth then should it be restricted in its exercise of its powers to cases where it thinks there is to be a breach of contract?
I do not know that these programme contractors and the other people concerned are so given to trumpeting their own conspiracies as the Government seem to think. How exactly is the Authority to know there is to be a breach of contract? Suppose some arrangement is come to, whether innocently or otherwise, that would be a breach of contract of the most grave character, that would upset completely the balance of the programmes, that would give them a tone and style that would be all wrong, that would amount to an unwholesome restriction of competition. It is not past programme contractors to do that sort of thing. What grounds have the Government for supposing that if they were to come to such an arrangement they would be so obliging as to go to the Authority and tell it all about it and trumpet it in the highways and byeways so that the Authority could take action?
Why should the Authority, charged with these responsible duties, be dependent on advance knowledge of what the programme contractors may say or do? What is the reason for this kindness and tenderness for these conspiratorial activities? Why are they to get this special treatment? Why should there be any restriction at all on the power the Authority has by the Third Schedule, when the Government intend that it should exercise those powers to perform the onerous duties placed upon it?
It is by the exercise of those powers that the Authority is to give the public some sort of safeguard—the only safeguard in the whole of this miserable Bill. I see no reason at all for a limitation of the sort which is to be put upon the Authority by this Clause. If such a limitation is to be put upon it, I would prefer the first Amendment which at any rate reserves, without the necessity of having an anticipated breach, the power to forbid broadcasting in proper cases or to require prior approval of what is to be broadcast.

The Solicitor-General: The hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) has made extremely clear his reasons for supporting the two Amendments to the Government's Amendment. If he is right—and in my view he is not—in saying that this Bill contains false teeth, then the effect of the first Amendment is to take out two of the false teeth and leave nothing.

Mr. Hobson: It makes it ugly.

The Solicitor-General: It may make it ugly, but it certainly makes it less operative than it is already. Under the first Amendment, the hon. and learned Gentleman limits the application of the proviso to the first two paragraphs of the Third Schedule. If that Amendment were carried to the Government Amendment, the Authority would not be able to act in relation to a matter which comes within paragraphs 3 and 4 of the Schedule.

Mr. Mitchison: With respect, the right hon. and learned Gentleman has got hold of the wrong end of the stick. Perhaps he will reconsider the matter. The effect of the Government Amendment is to limit the Authority. It is not to exercise any power referred to in the Third Schedule except on an anticipated breach.


The effect of our Amendment is to limit that limitation, and the result would be that the limitation would apply only to paragraphs 1 and 2. The Government proposal is to apply it to the whole of the Third Schedule—paragraphs 1, 2, 3 and 4. The right hon. and learned Gentleman and I have known one another for a long time, and I am sure he would be the first to admit that my interpretation is correct.

The Solicitor-General: The Government's intention certainly is that their Amendment should be applicable to paragraphs 1, 2, 3 and 4 of the Third Schedule aid the effect of the first Amendment to the Government's Amendment is to reduce the applicability of the Government's Amendment to paragraphs 1 and 2. That is what I thought I said and I am sorry if I did not make myself clear. We shall see, when we look at HANSARD, what I said.

Mr. Shackleton: Mr. Shackletonrose—

The Solicitor-General: May I now come to the point of substance, whether anyone is right about false teeth or not. The effect of the two Amendments would be completely to alter the Government's view as to the right and proper approach to the question of what authority the Authority should have.

Mr. Gordon Walker: No.

The Solicitor-General: It alters it on a material point, as I shall explain to the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Gordon Walker: It does not alter the Government's view as expressed throughout the Committee stage.

The Solicitor-General: I thought the right hon. Gentleman was suggesting that I was inaccurate in what I was saying. Having heard the point of his interruption, perhaps he will allow me to get on with the argument.
The Government's view is that the Third Schedule power should not be invoked by the Authority unless it apprehends that a breach on the part of a programme contractor is likely to take place. I recognise straight away, from what the hon. and learned Gentleman has said, that he does not share that view. The effect of the Amendment he has

moved would be that the Authority could exercise the Third Schedule powers whether or not they apprehended a breach of contract.

Mr. Mitchison: Mr. Mitchisonindicated assent.

The Solicitor-General: I see that the hon. and learned Gentleman agrees with me. We have formed the opinion that we really cannot accept that, because we do not take the view that the Third Schedule powers should be used or be able to be used so as to enable the Authority to use those powers for the purpose of routine or day-to-day checks on the programme contractors, without having any actual evidence that any breach of contract was likely or intended.
If the Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman were accepted, it would be perfectly possible for the Authority to exercise the Third Schedule powers at any time. It would be possible for them to exercise these day-to-day checks or controls on the programme contractors, and the Government think that would be wrong, and place an altogether excessive burden upon the contractors.

Mr. Shackleton: How does the I.T.A. carry out the instructions which they may receive from the Postmaster-General?

The Solicitor-General: I do not think that I can answer that question without knowing what are the instructions. [HON. MEMBERS: "They are in the Bill."] There are many instructions which the Postmaster-General can give, but, so far as the powers under the contract are concerned, the contract will deal with these, with this limitation, that the contract will contain, if this Amendment is accepted, the proviso that the Third Schedule powers which are specific powers cannot be exercised unless the Authority is satisfied of an apprehended breach.

Mr. Shackleton: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman answer the question, particularly in relation to the powers under Clause 4? Do the I.T.A. carry out the directions of the Postmaster-General?

The Solicitor-General: I do not think that the powers under Clause 4 and the point which I am dealing with are closely related. The Third Schedule gives the Authority instructions to make provision


in its contracts to require the provision in advance of scripts and particulars of programmes; for enabling the Authority to require the making of visual and sound records; for reserving to the Authority power to forbid the broadcasting of any matter, or class or description of matter; and for reserving to the Authority power to require that nothing shall be broadcast without the previous approval of the Authority.
These are specific powers, and we say that none of these powers should be capable of being exercised by the Authority unless the Authority is satisfied of an apprehended breach. We insert that stipulation because we are satisfied that it would be quite wrong, and most damaging to the operation of the Authority and its relation with the programme contractors, if, as suggested in the two Amendments, we gave the Authority such extensive powers, so vague and ill-defined, powers of interference and imposing day-to-day checks on the operations of the programme contractors, even though there maybe no reason whatsoever to think that they will be guilty of a breach.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: Will the Solicitor-General give the House an illustration of an apprehended breach?

9.0 p.m.

The Solicitor-General: I should have thought that if there were any reason to suppose that a breach was going to be made in the contract the Authority would be entitled, if satisfied that that was so, to invoke the powers under the Third Schedule. The hon. and learned Member knows very well that there are cases where it becomes quite apparent from letters which are written or information which is obtained, from one source or another, that a breach of a contract is likely to occur. Indeed, some parties to contracts, in the event of dispute, frequently say that they intend to disregard a certain provision. The information of an apprehended breach might well come from the other party to the contract.

Mr. Mitchison: If that is so, will the Solicitor-General explain why one of the powers that the Authority cannot exercise except in anticipation of a breach is the power to require the provision in advance of scripts and particulars of the programmes? How is the Authority to find out?

The Solicitor-General: I will give the hon. and learned Member a simple example. Suppose that two breaches have been established and two penalties imposed on a programme contractor. The Authority may well say, and honestly say, "We anticipate that this programme contractor will offend again." Having seen his programmes, the Authority might say that he is getting very near the line. Then, the time may come when the Authority says it is satisfied that there is an apprehended breach and can then impose the power of calling for scripts.

Mr. Herbert Morrison: The more I listened to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, the more I was mystified. The Bill as drafted is the Government's Bill. The Clause has appeared ever since the Bill appeared. Therefore, presumably, the Government believe in the Clause as it is. But now, the Solicitor-General says that the Clause, or subsection (5), is preposterous; it is a bad Clause, it is indefensible. What were the Government doing to bring the Clause in?

The Solicitor-General: If the right hon. Gentleman looks at lines 22 to 28, he will see that the words have precisely the same effect as the Amendment, which shows that it is a drafting Amendment.

Mr. Morrison: We do not agree that the Amendment is the same. We are now on Report stage. These Amendments were not brought in during Committee, otherwise they would not be here now. Therefore, why has this Government Amendment been put down? The Government up to this point believed in the Bill, as amended in Committee, and now they find that these Amendments are desirable.

The Solicitor-General: I ask the right hon. Gentleman to read lines 21 to 28, from which he will see that the Amendment which I have moved is merely a redraft of what was in the Bill, as amended in Committee. If he compares one with the other, he will see that they cover precisely the same substance. Both refer to an apprehended breach and to the other matters. The answer to the right hon. Gentleman on that point is a very short one.

Mr. Morrison: The proviso, I think, was amended in Committee. If the


Solicitor-General argues that the element of apprehension is preserved, and ought to be preserved, which I gather he is now doing, why does he want this other Amendment to bring in this element of apprehension? My explanation of the proposed change is that the Government wish to weaken the Clause. This is the consequence of pressure from the usual interested quarters and the people who wish to weaken the I.T.A. and the provisions of the Bill; because it is clear, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) said, that this change in the wording means that before the I.T.A. can act it has to be satisfied that it has an apprehension that a breach is to follow.
This leads to all sorts of legal possibilities, presumably of arguments in the court as to whether the Authority could have had reasonable cause to apprehend that a breach in the contract was to be made. Consequently this is a Government Amendment which is a limiting Amendment—[Interruption.] What else is it? [HON. MEMBERS: "Drafting."] That really will not do.
It is a material Amendment to the Clause, and therefore we think that it is a weakening of the provisions of the Bill, brought about by the customary little band of half a dozen or ten people representing the customary vested interests, who want to secure that the Bill shall be weak. We all know who that collection of people are.
We think that there is a case for preserving the application of this new provision to paragraphs 1 and 2. By the way, the Solicitor-General was wrong about that point. I think that he was the reverse of accurate. I understand that our Amendment preserves the applicability of the Government Amendment to paragraphs 1 and 2 and removes it from paragraphs 3 and 4, whereas the Solicitor-General, possibly by inadvertence, put it the other way round and said that it preserved the applicability of the Government Amendment to paragraphs 3 and 4. But while there is a case for preserving its applicability in respect of paragraphs 1 and 2, the provisions of paragrahs 3 and 4 are of substance and importance.
There are provisions in paragraph 3 which would reserve to the Authority
power to forbid the broadcasting of any matter, or class or description of matter.
Surely it is reasonable that the Authority should have that power without having to prove to itself that it apprehends a breach of contract. That is one of the essential powers of the Authority, and the Government Amendment takes that power away, at all events partially, and it seems to us that it ought to be preserved. The fourth paragraph in the Schedule is
For reserving to the Authority power to require that nothing shall be broadcast without the previous approval of the Authority.
How is the Authority to be sure that a breach of contract may be apprehended?
The Authority ought to have a straight, clear power to do these things and make these provisions. I can only interpret the Government Amendment as having the intention of weakening the Authority and the power of the I.T.A. That is what it seems to me to be for, and it is the result of pressure; otherwise it would not have come before us at this late stage.
So much for the first Amendment to the proposed Amendment, the one which my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering has moved. I agree that in the second Amendment we are trying to widen the powers of the Authority, and I do not see why these should not be widened. These limited powers which the Government are trying to put into the Bill are dangerous, and when they say it is necessary to do so, having regard to the breach which is apprehended on the part of the programme contractor, it is asking for all sorts of legal uncertainty, controversy and a nervousness on the part of the Authority as to whether it is acting in conformity with the law or not.
That is the purpose, in my view—to make the authority so nervous that the contractors will have a free hand and the Authority will be afraid to intervene. Therefore we seek in our second Amendment to the proposed Amendment to add the words:
or expedient to do so in order to comply, or secure compliance, with the provisions of this Act.
There are provisions of the Act in various places whereby the Postmaster-General


can give directions. My hon. Friend the Member for Preston, South (Mr. Shackle-ton) has referred to the extensive provisions in Clause 4. If the Independent Television Authority is given instructions that it must secure that the programme contractor must observe this, that or the other, surely that power or direction to the Authority is weakened by the Government Amendment. It may well be, therefore, that the Government are not only weakening the power and authority of the I.T.A., but also the power of the Postmaster-General; because when the Authority receives its instructions it may, in its judgment, find that it cannot reasonably apprehend a breach of contract in this sense.
What the Authority is required to do under the terms of the Government Amendment is almost to be satisfied that an offence is about to be committed. That is not reasonable. It is not the way in which this instruction can work properly. It is all right in an ordinary prosecution in a court of law that the prosecution shall prove its case and not prosecute a poor chap before he has committed an offence; but this is administration. This is a situation in which a programme contractor may be doing, or is about to do, certain things; but to expect the Authority to be satisfied that that is a matter of certainty is unreasonable. It may wish to take a record or require a recording of a programme, and so on, and it will be nervous or apprehensive about that.
Therefore, it seems to us that our two Amendments to the proposed Amendment are reasonable. We do not see how paragraphs 3 and 4 will be workable with the Government Amendment applied to them. We are doubtful whether they can be operated, and, for the reasons given by my hon. and learned Friend and myself, we consider that the Government Amendment is bad. We consider that it is calculated to weaken and has the purpose of weakening the provisions of the Bill, and so we think that our two Amendments to the proposed Amendment are necessary and desirable in the public interest.

Mr. Simon: We have heard once again about this nefarious band who have forced the Government to bring in the Bill and who have now forced this Amendment on a reluctant Government.

They were originally referred to by, I think, the hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. G. Darling) as a "shady mixture"—

Mr. Darling: I said "shadowy."

Mr. Simon: The hon. Member said "shady" and then a "shabby mixture," and a great many of us felt that our withers were slightly wrung, because we thought that we were being referred to. Now we have heard that they are a "shadowy mixture."
What have they done? They have exerted their power once again. This Amendment is one more example of the power behind this Bill. They have taken a form of words from about line 25 and put it in the same form of words slightly higher up. That is an example of how this wicked force behind the Government exert their power over the Government. If I may say so with respect, this is purely an example of shadow boxing. To pretend that there is anything more in it than a drafting Amendment, when it is the same form of words, is the height of purility.

Mr. Mitchison: I thought that the hon. and learned Member for Middlesbrough, West (Mr. Simon) was doing the shadow boxing. Whether this appears by way of Amendment or in the original place in the Bill, it raises a very important point. The hon. and learned Gentleman knows quite well that the Amendments to the Amendment, which he has heard explained, raise an important alternative. Let us have the substance of the matter. The question is whether or not these powers should be exercised on an anticipated breach or generally. Let us have an answer to the substance and not to the form.

9.15 p.m.

Mr. Simon: These words, of course, have force. They had force where they were originally put and they have exactly the same force now. Obviously these should be reserve powers used only in respect of an apprehended breach. However, I was referring, with great respect, to the argument of the right hon. Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) that this was an example again of the hidden hand operating in relation to this Bill, and I was pointing out that


to apply that argument to this Government Amendment is to show how completely idle it is.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: I hope that the Solicitor-General will not be misled by the "Simple Simon" view he has just heard on this subject. I would like him to bring his legal mind to bear upon the point in issue. The Government Amendment in its present context is legal gibberish and, in my view, futile verbiage. The Third Schedule to the Bill states that the provisions in the Schedule are to be made part of the contract. It is plain, therefore, they are to be put into the contract for a purpose, not for nonsense, and obviously not in order that they should not be carried out.
Then we get the supreme contradiction that reduces this matter to an absurdity, in that, having made the provisions of the Third Schedule part of the contract, and having put it in terms that are to belong to the contract and, therefore, enforceable, the Solicitor-General now brings forward an Amendment in which he says that they are not to be carried out. That is to say, one party to the contract, namely, the Independent Television Authority, is not to be able to exercise the powers given to it in the provisions of the Schedule unless it is satisfied that there is an apprehended breach.
If the provisions in the Third Schedule are to be incorporated in and be part of the contract, how is it practicable first of all to have to apprehend breaches in order to give effect to and make sense of the Government Amendment? The proposal is utter nonsense. I speak to the Solicitor-General as one lawyer to another and ask him not to affront the common sense of the House by bringing forward an Amendment of this extraordinary nature. He is, I hope, not being beguiled by his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, West (Mr. Simon) behind him; and I ask him to put him behind him. I ask him not to father upon the House what is nothing more or less than a piece of legislative nonsensicality.

Mr. Hobson: I listened to the exchanges of the hon. and learned Members across the Floor of the House and it was not until my right hon. Friend the

Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) spoke that I obtained any elucidation of the point under discussion.
It seems to me perfectly reasonable to make the exception proposed in the Government Amendment with regard to the supply of scripts in advance and particulars of programmes, but what is the objection to including the third and fourth paragraphs of the Schedule which reserve to the Authority power to forbid the broadcasting of any matter and to require that nothing shall be broadcast without the previous approval of the Authority? Surely those are precisely the terms under which the B.B.C. operates at present. If that is so, why should not the contractors operate under the same terms?
Paragraph 4 reserves
… to the Authority power to require that nothing shall be broadcast without the previous approval of the Authority.
That is precisely the same power as exists in the case of the B.B.C. It seems to me that it would logically follow that the same powers should be vested in the Authority. I should like to know what the Solicitor-General has to say about this. What is his nefarious reason for objecting to these provisions?
There is another point which, as a layman, I should like to put to the Solicitor-General. We have heard a lot about "apprehension." How are we to apprehend that there is a breach until a breach has occurred? It seems to me that the powers would be provided far too late to be of any use. We ought to be told by the Government the reasons for failing to include paragraphs 3 and 4 of the Schedule, and we ought also to be given a definition of "apprehension."

Mr. Shackleton: Let me remove one complication from the debate. We are debating an Amendment which was inserted on Committee stage. The reason why our Amendments are put down on Report is that, because of the Guillotine, we did not have time to discuss the point earlier. The fact that the Solicitor-General and the Assistant Postmaster-General have decided to move the provision from one part of the Bill to another, following certain other desirable legal changes, has merely made the position a little more obscure.
We can leave the argument which was produced by the hon. and learned Member for Middlesbrough, West (Mr. Simon) as part of his defence of the Government. I am sure that the hon. and learned Member—I made a mistake in an earlier debate in calling him a good lawyer, I now term him "a competent lawyer"—cannot defend the Government's wording in the original version or this version.
I should like to know from the Solicitor-General what powers the I.T.A. will now have in general if it cannot put into a contract any provisions forbidding the use of certain materials. Now will a breach of the contract which it might subsequently apprehend be committed?
Also, how will it be possible under Clause 4 (5) for the I.T.A. to carry out the instructions of the Postmaster-General about methods of advertising and so on. The Amendment tabled on the Comtnittee stage was quite specific. It laid down that the I.T.A. should not be allowed to take any powers to forbid any matter. However, very solemn undertakings were given on behalf of the Government in connection with the I.T.A. about religious and medical broadcasts. Today a new Clause dealing with

advisory committees has been put into the Bill. How will the I.T.A. be able to:
… secure compliance with the recommendations of the said committees …

unless it has powers under the contracts to forbid the broadcasting of certain matters? The programme contractors will not have committed any breach because nothing is laid down in the Bill as to precisely what should or should not he done under the new Clause. It is only when the recommendations of the various committees are made that the I.T.A. will be in a position to give instructions that they are to be carried out. In fact they will have no powers to give those instructions.

Before we leave this point we must ask the Solicitor-General to give us a further explanation, as he must agree that the situation is obscure. Perhaps he would look at it again and make an Amendment in another place?

Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the proposed Amendment."

The House divided: Ayes, 253; Noes, 258.

Division No. 164.]
AYES
[9.26 p.m.


Acland, Sir Richard
Cullen, Mrs. A.
Grimond, J.


Adams, Richard
Daines, P.
Hale, Leslie


Albu, A. H
Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)
Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)


Awbery, S. S.
Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Hamilton, W. W.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Hannan, W.


Baird, J
Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Hargreaves, A.


Bartley, P.
de Freitas, Geoffrey
Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)


Benson, G.
Deer, G.
Hastings, S.


Beswick, F.
Delargy, H. J.
Hayman, F. H.


Bing, G. H. C.
Dodds, N. N.
Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)


Blackburn, F.
Donnelly, D. L.
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)


Blenkinsop, A.
Driberg, T. E. N.
Herbison, Miss M.


Blyton, W. R.
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)
Hewitson, Capt. M


Boardman, H.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Hobson, C. R.


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G
Edelman, M.
Holman, P.


Bowden, H. W.
Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)
Holmes, Horace


Bowen, E. R.
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Holt, A. F.


Bowles, F. G.
Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Houghton, Douglas


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Hoy, J. H.


Brockway, A. F.
Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
Hubbard, T. F.


Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)
Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Fernyhough, E.
Hughes, Chedwyn (Anglesey)


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Fienburgh, W.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Finch, H. J.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)


Burke, W. A.
Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)
Follick, M.
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)


Callaghan, L. J.
Foot, M. M.
Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)


Carmichael, J.
Forman, J. C.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Janner, B.


Champion, A. J.
Freeman, John (Watford)
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T


Chetwynd, G. R.
Gibson, C. W.
Jeger, George (Goole)


Clunie, J.
Gooch, E. G.
Jeger, Mrs. Lena


Coldrick, W.
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C
Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)


Collick P. H.
Greenwood, Anthony
Johnson, James (Rugby)


Cove, W. G.
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Jones, David (Hartlepool)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)


Crosland, C. A. R.
Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)




Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Padley, W. E.
Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)


Keenan, W.
Paget, R. T.
Stross, Dr. Barnett


Kenyon, C.
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Swingler, S. T.


King, Dr. H. M.
Palmer, A. M. F.
Sylvester, G. O.


Kinley, J.
Pannell, Charles
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Lawson, G. M.
Pargiter, G. A.
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Parker, J.
Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)


Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Parkin, B. T.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Paton, J.
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)


Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Pearl, T. F.
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


Lewis, Arthur
Plummer, Sir Leslie
Thornton, E.


Lindgren, G. S.
Popplewell, E.
Timmons, J.


Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Porter, G.
Tomney, F.


Logan, D. G.
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Turner-Samuels, M.


MacColl, J. E.
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


McInnes, J.
Proctor, W. T.
Viant, S. P.


McKay, John (Wallsend)
Pryde, D. J.
Wade, D. W.


McLeavy, F.
Pursey, Cmdr. H.
Wallace, H. W.


McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.
Rankin, John
Warbey, W. N.


Mainwaring, W. H.
Reeves, J.
Watkins, T. E.


Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Reid, Thomas (Swindon)
Weitzman, D.


Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Reid, William (Camlachie)
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Mann, Mrs. Jean
Rhodes, H.
Wells, William (Walsall)


Manuel, A. C.
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.
West, D. G.


Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Wheeldon, W. E.


Mason, Roy
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Mayhew, C. P.
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Mellish, R. J.
Ross, William
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Messer, Sir F.
Royle, C.
Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B


Mikardo, Ian
Shackleton, E. A. A.



Mitchison, G. R.
Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir Hartley
Wilkins, W. A.


Monslow, W.
Short, E. W.
Willey, F. T.


Moody, A. S.
Silverman, Julius (Erdington)
Williams, David (Neath)


Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)


Morley, R.
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)
Williams, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Don V'H'y)


Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Skeffington, A. M.
Williams, W. R. (Droyisden)


Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke-on-Trent)
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Mort, D. L.
Slater, J. (Durham, Sedgefield)
Willis, E. G.


Moyle, A.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)


Mulley, F. W
Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Nally, W.
Snow, J. W.
Wyatt, W. L.


Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J
Sorensen, R. W.
Yates, V. F.


O'Brien, T.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Oldfield, W. H
Sparks, J. A.



Oliver, G. H.
Steele, T.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Orbach, M.
Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.
Mr. Pearson and Mr. Arthur Allen


Oswald, T.
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.





NOES


Aitken, W. T.
Campbell, Sir David
Fletcher-Cooke, C.


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Cary, Sir Robert
Ford, Mrs. Patricia


Alport, C. J. M.
Channon, H.
Fort, R.


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)


Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)
Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell


Arbuthnot, John
Clyde, Rt. Hon. J. L.
Galbraith, Rt. Hon. T. D. (Pollok)


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)
Cole, Norman
Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M
Colegate, W. A.
Gammans, L. D.


Baldwin, A. E.
Conant, Maj. Sir Roger
Glover, D.


Barlow, Sir John
Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert
Godber, J. B.


Baxter Sir Beverley
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.


Beach, Maj. Hicks
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Gough, C. F. H.


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Graham, Sir Fergus


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Crouch, R. F.
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)


Bennett, William (Woodside)
Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)
Hall, John (Wycombe)


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)
Hare, Hon. J. H.


Birch, Nigel
Deedes, W. F.
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)


Bishop, F. P.
Digby, S. Wingfield
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)


Boothby, Sir R. J. G.
Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield)


Bossom, Sir A. C.
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.
Doughty, C. J. A.
Hay, John


Boyle, Sir Edward
Drayson, G. B.
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel


Braine, B. R.
Drewe, Sir C.
Heath, Edward


Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. Sir T. (Richmond)
Henderson, John (Catheart)


Braithwaite, Sir Gurney
Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Higgs, J. M. C.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Duthie, W. S.
Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)


Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount


Brooman-White, R. C.
Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)
Hirst, Geoffrey


Browne, Jack (Govan)
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Holland-Martin, C. J.


Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T
Erroll, F. J.
Mollis, M. C.


Bullard, D. G.
Finlay, Graeme
Hope, Lord John


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Fisher, Nigel
Hopkinson, Rt. Hon. Henry


Burden, F. F. A.
Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P







Horobin, I. M.
Medlicott, Brig. F.
Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)


Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Mellor, Sir John
Snadden, W. McN.


Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)
Molson, A. H. E.
Soames, Capt. C.


Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter
Spearman, A. C. M.


Hulbert, Wing Cdr. N. J.
Moore, Sir Thomas
Speir, R. M.


Hurd, A. R.
Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Spens, Rt. Hon. Sir P. (Kensington, S)


Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (Eb'rgh, W.)
Mott-Radclyffe, C E.
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Hyde, Lt.-Col, H. M.
Nabarro, G. D. N.
Stevens, Geoffrey


Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.
Neave, Airey
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)


Iremonger, T. L.
Nicholls, Harmar
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)
Storey, S.


Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Nield, Basil (Chester)
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)


Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)
Noble, Comdr. A. H P
Studholme, H. G.


Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.
Nugent, G. R. H.
Summers, G. S.


Kerby, Capt. H. B.
Oakshott, H. D.
Sutcliffe, Sir Harold


Kerr, H. W.
Odey, G. W.
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Lambert, Hon. G.
O'Neill, Hon, Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.
Teeling, W.


Langford-Holt, J. A.
Orr, Capt, L. P. S.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)


Leather, E. H. C.
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Osborne, C.
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)


Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Page, R. G.
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Linstead, Sir H. N.
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.
Thornton-Kenneth, Col. C. N


Llewellyn, D. T.
Perkins, Sir Robert
Tilney, John


Loyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Peto, Brig. C. H. M
Touche, Sir Gordon


Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Peyton, J. W. W.
Turner, H. F. L


Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C
Pickthorn, K. W. M
Turton, R. H.


Longden, Gilbert
Pitman, I. J.
Vane, W. M. F.


Low, A. R. W.
Pitt, Miss E. M.
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Lucas. Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Powell, J. Enoch
Vosper, D. F.


Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. Marylebone)


McAdden, S. J.
Profumo, J. D.
Walker-Smith, D. C


McCallum, Major D.
Raikes, Sir Victor
Wall, Major Patrick


McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S
Rayner, Brig. R.
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)


Macdonald, Sir Peter
Redmayne, M.
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry
Rees-Davies, W. R



McKibbin, A. J.
Remnant, Hon. P.
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C


Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)
Renton, D. L. M.
Walkinson, H. A.


Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Ridsdale, J. E.
Webbe.Sir H. (London &amp; Westminster)


Maclean, Fitzroy
Robertson, Sir David
Wellwood, W.


Macleod, Rt. Hon. tain (Enfield, W.)
Robson-Brown, W.
Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)


MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Roper, Sir Harold
Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)


Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)
Russell, R. S.
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Marningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir Reginald
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.
Wills, G.


Markham, Major Sir Frank
Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Marlowe, A. A. H.
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.
Wood, Hon. R.


Marples, A. E.
Scott, R. Donald



Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Maude, Angus
Shepherd, William
Mr. Kaberry and


Maulding, R.
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)
Mr. Richard Thompson.


Maydon, LI.-Cmdr. S. L. C
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

Proposed words there inserted in the Bill.

Further Amendments made: In page 10, line 11, leave out "(b) all," and insert:
(6) Every such contract shall in particular contain.
In page 10, line 16, leave out "paragraph (b) of."
In page 10, leave out lines 22 to 28.—[The Solicitor-General.]

Mr. Mitchison: I beg to move, in page 10, to leave out lines 29 to 31.
This Amendment proposes to delete the provision that the maximum penalty is not to exceed £500, and it raises in a convenient form the suggestion made by the right hon. and learned Solicitor-General at an earlier stage. What, apparently, the Government now propose is that there

should be—and here I agree with them—provision for a penalty in these contracts. The reason given for it is that it may, in effect, be difficult for the Authority to show damages. We are therefore agreed on the principle that a penalty is appropriate. The question is whether there ought to be a maximum penalty, as the Government propose, or whether the matter should be left at the discretion of the arbitrator, or, if the case comes before the court, at the discretion of the court, without the maximum of £500 as set out in the Clause.
I merely rise to say that the tenderness shown towards the programme contractors seems to be increasing at every step through this Clause. We are now agreed that there ought to be, as there is no criminal penalty of any sort, a penalty for what may be a very serious matter.


There is to be a limitation of £500 and the matter is not to be left to any tribunal that has to adjudicate.
I fail to understand why, if we are to have a penalty, there should be any limitation at all. How have the Government arrived at the figure of £500? Did they do it by pitch-and-toss at St. Martin's le Grand? Why select this particular penalty? The mere impossibility of defending any particular figure in the circumstances seems to me to show the complete idiocy of any monetary limitation in the matter of a penalty.
Surely in a field like this—and the Government are the first to confess, and indeed pride themselves on the fact, that they do not know where they are going—the sensible thing is to wait and see what happens, and leave the penalty to be fixed by the people who have to decide. It may be that £500 would be grossly excessive. It may be that it would prove quite inadequate. After all, time on these programmes will be expensive, and it might very well pay someone to commit a breach or two if he knew that he would only have to pay £500 a time.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: I beg to second the Amendment.

The Solicitor-General: By this Amendment the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) has raised the question of whether there should be any limit on the amount of penalty which the arbitrator can fix in consequence of a breach of the contract provisions. He has put forward the argument that there should be no limit. He suggested that the limit which has been fixed was fixed at a game of pitch-and-toss in St. Martin's le Grand. I can assure him that nothing of that sort took place.
We thought that it was desirable that there should be a limit imposed to the penalty which could be awarded, particularly, as the right hon. Gentleman will recognise, when one has so many precedents in other fields for imposing limits to the amount of financial penalties that can be awarded. When we came to consider what should be the maximum we sought to arrive at a figure which was reasonably high and big enough to be a deterrent without appearing to be entirely oppressive. It was in that way that we arrived at the figure of £500.
I would remind the hon. and learned Gentleman that the penalty of £500 is by no means the sole sanction that can be imposed on the recalcitrant contractor. If one acts under the special machinery it is true that there is a penalty of £500 for the first breach, and indeed for the second, but with the third breach one can take steps under subsection (6)—and they are drastic steps. There are, in addition, the common law rights. It is really misrepresenting the position to make it appear that no matter how guilty of a breach of contract a contractor may be the only penalty that can be imposed is a maximum sum of £500. I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman really did not mean to suggest that, and I am merely putting it beyond doubt that the £500 penalty provision is not the sole penalty that a contractor can incur as a result of a breach of contract.

Mr. Mitchison: Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman allow me to ask if there is, in fact, no other penalty until one has committed at least two breaches of contract, and that so far as courts of law are concerned the arbitration provisions here are put in in order—by agreement it is true—to keep proceedings out of the ordinary court of law?

The Solicitor-General: The hon. and learned Gentleman will see that the proposed new subsection (7) provides that:
The provisions of this section relating to breaches of contract … shall be without prejudice to any other remedies of the Authority for the enforcement of their rights in respect of contracts with programme contractors. …

Mr. Mitchison: What remedies?

The Solicitor-General: There is the remedy of injunction for one. And if one can establish that the Authority has suffered damages—and that is the real difficulty—one can take the necessary steps, and, of course, if the breach goes to the root of the contract one can exercise the right of determining the contract. It is for those reasons that we thought it desirable and right that a limit should be imposed on the amount of penalty, and that is the only question raised by the Amendment.
Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out to 'exigible' in line 29, stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 267; Noes, 249.

Division No. 165.]
AYES
[9.45 p.m.


Aitken, W. T.
Gower, H. R.
Medlicott. Brig. F


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Graham, Sir Fergus
Mellor, Sir John


Alport, C. J. M.
Grimond, J.
Molson, A. H. E.


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter


Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Moore, Sir Thomas


Arbuthnot, John
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Morrison, John (Salisbury)


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)
Hare, Hon. J. H.
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)
Nabarro, G. D. N.


Baldwin, A. E.
Harrison, Col, J. H. (Eye)
Neave, Airey


Barlow, Sir John
Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield)
Nicholls, Harmar


Baxter, Sir Beverley
Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)


Beach, Maj. Hicks
Hay, John
Nield, Basil (Chester)


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Heath, Edward
Nugent, G. R. H.


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Henderson, John (Catheart)
Oakshott, H. D


Bennett, William (Woodside)
Higgs, J. M. C.
Odey, G. W


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)
O'Neill, Hon. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)


Birch, Nigel
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.


Bishop, F. P.
Hirst, Geoffrey
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Boothby, Sir R. J. G
Holland-Marlin, C. J
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)


Bossom, Sir A. C.
Hollis, M. C.
Osborne, C.


Bowen, E. R.
Holt, A. F.
Page, R. G.


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.
Hope, Lord John
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.


Boyle, Sir Edward
Hopkinson. Rt. Hon. Henry
Perkins, Sir Robert


Braine, B. R.
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.


Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Horobin, I. M.
Peyton, J. W. W.


Braithwaite, Sir Gurney
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Pickthorn, K. W. M


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H
Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)
Pitman, I. J


Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N)
Pitt, Miss E. M.


Brooman-While, R. C
Hulbert, Wing Cdr. N. J.
Powell, J. Enoch


Browne, Jack (Govan)
Hurd, A. H
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)


Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T
Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'rgh, W.)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L


Bullard, D. G
Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)
Profumo, J. D.


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E
Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.
Raikes, Sir Victor


Burden, F. F. A.
Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.
Rayner, Brig. R.


Campbell, Sir David
Iremonger, T. L.
Redmayne, M.


Cary, Sir Robert
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Rees-Davies, W. R


Channon, H.
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Remnant, Hon. P.


Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Johnson, Howard (Kemplown)
Renton, D. L. M.


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Porfsmouth, W)
Joymon-Hicks, Hon. L. W
Ridsdale, J. E.


Clyde, Rt. Hon. J. L.
Kerby, Capt. H. B.
Robertson, Sir David


Cole, Norman
Kerr, H. W.
Robson-Brown, W.


Colegate, W. A.
Lambert, Hon. G.
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)


Conant, Maj. Sir Roger
Lambton, Viscount
Roper, Sir Harold


Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Craddock, Beretford (Spelthorne)
Langford-Holt, J. A.
Russell, R. S.


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C
Leather, E. H. C.
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas


Crouch, R. F.
Lesh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.


Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Linstead, Sir H. N
Scott, R. Donald


Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)
Llewellyn, D. T.
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.


Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Shepherd, William


Deedes, W. F.
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Simon, J. E. S (Middlesbrough, W.)


Digby, S. Wingfield
Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Longden, Gilbert
Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Low, A. R. W.
Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)


Doughty, C. J. A.
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Snadden, W. McN.


Drayson, G. B.
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)
Soames, Capt. C.


Drewe, Sir C.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Speir, R. M.


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. Sir T (Richmond)
McAdden, S. J.
Spens, Rt. Hon. Sir P. (Kensington, S.)


Duncan, Capt. J. A L.
McCullum, Major D.
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Duthie, W. S.
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S
Stevens, Geoffrey


Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir D. M.
Macdonald, Sir Peter
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)


Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)
McKibbin, A. J.
Storey, S.


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E
Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)


Erroll, F. J.
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Summers, G. S.


Finlay, Graeme
Maclean, Fitzroy
Sutcliffe, Sir Harold


Fisher, Nigel
Macleod, Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F
MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Teeling, W.


Ford, Mrs. Patricia
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)


Fort, R.
Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)


Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir Reginald
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Galbraith, Rt. Hon. T. D. (Pollok)
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)


Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.


Gammans, L. D.
Marples, A. E.
Tilney, John


Glover, D.
Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)
Touche, Sir Gordon


Godber, J. B.
Maude, Angus
Turner, H. F. L


Gomme-Duncan, Col. A
Maudling, R
Turton, R. H.


Gough, C. F. H.
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.
Vane, W. M. F.







Vaughan-Morgan, J. K
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Vosper, D. F.
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Wade, D. W.
Watkinson, H. A.
Wills, G.


Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)
Webbe, Sir H. (London &amp; Westminster)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Trure)


Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. Marylebone)
Wallwood, W.
Wood, Hon. R.


Walker-Smith, D. C.
Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)



Wall, Major Patrick
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)
Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)
Mr. Studbolme and Mr. Kiberry




NOES


Acland, Sir Richard
Griffiths, Rt Hon. James (Ltanelty)
Morley, R


Adams, Richard
Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Morris, Percy (Swamea, W.)


Albu, A. H.
Hale, Leslie
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Hall, Rt. Hen. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Mort, D. L.


Awbery, S. S.
Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)
Moyle, A.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Hamilton, W. W
Mulley, F. W


Baird, J.
Hannan, W.
Nally, W.


Bartley, P.
Hargreaves, A.
O'Brien, T.


Benson, G.
Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)
Oldfield, W. H.


Boswick, F.
Hastings, S.
Oliver, G. H.


Bing, G. H. C
Hayman, F. H,
Orbach, M.


Blackburn, F.
Healey, Denis (Leeds, S. E.)
Oswald, T.


Blenkinsop, A.
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)
Padtey, W. E.


Blyton, W. R.
Herbison, Miss M.
Paget, R. T.


Boardman, H.
Hewitson, Capt. M
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G
Hobson, C. R.
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)


Bowden, H. W.
Holman, P.
Palmer, A. M. F.


Bowles, F. G.
Holmes, Horace
Pannell, Charles


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Houghton, Douglas
Pargiter, G. A.


Brockway, A. F.
Hoy, J. H.
Parker, J.


Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Hubbard, T. F.
Parkin, B. T


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)
Paton, J.


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Peart, T. F.


Brown. Thomas (Ince)
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Plummer, Sir Leslie


Burke, W. A.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Popplewell, E.


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Porter, G.


Callaghan, L. J.
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Price, J. T. (Westhougnton)


Carmichael, J.
Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Proctor, W. T.


Champion, A. J.
Janner, B.
Pryde, D. J.


Chetwynd, G. R.
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Pursey, Cmdr. H


Clunie, J.
Jeger, George (Goole)
Rankin, John


Coldrick, W.
Jeger, Mrs. Lena
Reeves, J.


Collick, P. H.
Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)
Reid, Thomas (Swindon)


Cove, W. G.
Johnson, James (Rugby)
Reid, William (Camlaehie)


Craddock, George (Bradford. S)
Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Rhodes, H.


Crosland, C. A. R
Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.


Cullen, Mrs. A.
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Daines, P.
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Keenan, W.
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras. N.)


Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)
Kenyon, C.
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W
Ross, William


Davies, Harold (Leek)
King, Dr. H. M
Royle, C.


Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Kinley, J.
Shackleton, E. A. A.


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Lawson, G. M.
Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir Hartley


Deer, G.
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Short, E. W.


Delargy, H. J.
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Silverman, Julius (Erdington)


Dodds, N. N.
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Donnelly, D. L.
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Driberg, T. E. N.
Lewis, Arthur
Skeffington, A. M.


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)
Lindgren, G. S.
Slater, Mrs H. (Stoke-on-Trent)


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C
Lipton, Lt. Col. M.
Slater, J. (Durham, Sedgfield)


Edelman, M.
Logan, D. G.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)
MacColl, J. E.
Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
McInnes, J.
Snow, J. W.


Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Sorensen, R. W.


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
McLeavy, F.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Evans. Edward (Lowestoft)
McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.
Sparks, J. A.


Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)
Mainwaring, W. H.
Steele, T.


Fernyhough, E.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R


Fienburgh, W.
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.


Finch, H. J.
Mann, Mrs. Jean
Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)


Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)
Manuel, A. C.
Stross, Dr. Barnett


Follick, M.
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Foot, M. M.
Mason, Roy
Swingler, S. T.


Forman, J. C.
Mayhew, C. P.
Sylvester, G. O.


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Mellish, R. J.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Freeman, John (Watford)
Messer, Sir F.
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Gibson, C. W.
Mikardo, Ian
Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)


Gooch, E. G.
Mitchison, G. R
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C
Monslow, W.
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)


Greenwood, Anthony
Moody, A. S.
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Morgan, Dr. H. B. W
Thornton, E.







Timmons, J.
West, D. G.
Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)


Tomney, F.
Wheeldon, W. E.
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Turner-Samuels, M.
White, Mrs.. Eirene (E. Flint)
Willis, E. G.


Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N. E.)
Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)


Viant, S. P.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.
Woodbum, Rt. Hon. A


Wallace, H. W.
Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.
Wyatt, W. L


Warbey, W. N.
Wilkins, W. A.
Yates, V. F.


Watkins, T. E.
Willey, F. T.
Younger, Rt. Hon. K


Weitzman, D.
Williams, David (Neath)



Wells, Percy (Faversham)
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Wells, William (Walsall)
Williams, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Don V'll'y)
Mr. Pearson and Mr. Arthur Allen.

Amendments made: In page 10, line 29, leave out "exigible," and insert:
which may be demanded by the Authority.

In line 36, after "aforesaid," insert:
or as to the amount demanded by way of penalty in respect of any such breach."—[The Solicitor-General.]

Mr. Mitchison: I beg to move, in page 11, to leave out lines 12 to 17.
This iniquitous Guillotine has led to our dropping at least two points of major importance in this Part of the Bill. We regard the provisions of this Clause as particularly scandalous in respect of the two provisos which appear in it. This Amendment seeks to omit the latter and the worse of the two.
This remarkable proviso is to the effect that, the matter having been referred to arbitration, the penalty having been limited, the Authority having been deprived of its powers to enforce the contract except when a breach of it is apprehended, the sinner—in this case the programme contractor—is to be allowed two breaches of contract before his contract is ended. He can do twice something which in ordinary arrangements, in ordinary business, would entitle the other party to the contract—that is to say, the Authority—to say, "That is a breach going to the root of the matter and the contract is now dissolved." That power appears to be taken away, and in its place the Authority, in the exercise of its public duties, has to submit to two breaches of contract before the matter can be terminated. That is arranged by ordering that kind of thing to be put into the contract itself.
We have to bear in mind in all this that the breaches of contract which are to be expected are breaches which concern not merely the Authority or the programme contractors but also the public at large. They are breaches which will enable the programme contractor to ride through the provisions of the Bill, to secure an unbalanced programme, to put in what is obscene or criminal or to insert every

kind of matter to the detriment of the country and of the public; and to do it twice before anybody can do anything to stop him. I have never found in a Bill such a singular tenderness for one set of people as exists in this Bill for the programme contractors. They are to be bitten with false teeth but only after they have twice deserved a bite.
We can only surmise the reasons for this, but we say to the Government in all seriousness that if for some political purpose they start playing about with the ordinary provisions of the law like this, and if they provide for special procedure and give to one class of person a protection in civil matters for which there appears to be no reason, they are taking one small but one sure step towards the dictatorship which the party opposite say they dislike—and they are taking it in the interests of commercial television and all those who are concerned in it. They are being led down the primrose path towards the actual guillotine by a gay band of programme contractors and advertising agents. No doubt they seem to right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite to be people of little importance and a certain attraction financially or otherwise. Their profits may be safeguarded, their ways of business may be protected, and this particular Clause for those purposes sacrifices every principle and method of justice ever known to this country.
10.0 p.m.
There has been singularly little attempt to defend in any way this particular Clause, the discussion of which has been shortened by the operation of the Guillotine, just as it was in Committee. I say that it is a scandalous abuse of the machinery of justice to put a Clause of this sort in a Bill of this sort, in the particular interests of people of this sort. It is a scandalous arrangement that the proper discussion of it should be curtailed because the Government have mistimed their own legislative programme and found it necessary to put the Guillotine on this Bill.

Mr. E. Fletcher: I beg to second the Amendment.
I do not think that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) has exaggerated in any way the objections to this Clause. It seems to me that this proviso which we are moving to delete goes to the heart of the problem whether or not the Government intend programme contractors to fulfil their contracts honourably and in accordance with both the spirit and the letter of the undertaking which they will be giving to the Authority. This Clause presupposes that there will be breaches of contract by programme contractors, and the issue is what is to happen when there is a breach of contract by programme contractors?
One of the Amendments which we had down and which, owing to the operation of the Guillotine, has not been called, was our suggestion that any breach of contract by programme contractors should be subject to open inquiry and by adjudication in the courts. As the Bill stands, it is possible for a breach of contract which affects the public interest to be decided behind closed doors, in private, by an arbitrator. Surely the Home Secretary would agree that that is wrong. Surely he would agree that, if there is a breach of contract by one of these very privileged class of programme contractors, that is a matter which the public interest requires should be ventilated freely and fully in public and, in preference, by Her Majesty's courts of justice, and not by an arbitrator sitting in secret.
We feel that it is absolutely monstrous that there should be two or three serious breaches of contract on which the public has no general knowledge before the Authority should take the steps given in this Bill. There is no parallel for this kind of provision in any legislation with which I am familiar, and it seems quite indefensible that the Home Secretary should coldly envisage a set of circumstances in which programme contractors make one or two very serious breaches which affect the public interest before the Authority has any redress and the public has any redress from the abuses which, ex hypothesi, occur before this provision operates.

The Solicitor-General: The hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) and the hon. Member for

Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) have indeed surprised me by their speeches, because they seem not to have heard me draw attention to subsection (7), which provides that if there is a breach of contract by the programme contractor the Authority will have all the normal rights under the ordinary law in relation to such a breach. Therefore, if the Amendment is carried, as I hope it will be shortly, it really is complete and utter nonsense for the hon. and learned Gentleman to say that the programme contractor can be guilty of two breaches of contract before anything can be done to stop him. That is not the case.
It is quite wrong for the hon. Member for Islington, East to suggest that there can be a most serious breach of contract for which only a penalty of £500 can be imposed if it is the first breach. If it is a breach that goes to the root of the contract, if the Amendment which we will shortly be discussing is accepted, the Authority will have power to terminate the contract straight away. That is the short answer to the arguments that have been put forward.
We think it absolutely right that, not only should there be the common law remedies, but also that there should be these financial penalty provisions before the special powers contained in subsection (6) can be brought into operation. Those powers in subsection (6) are very potent indeed. If there were a possibility of their being brought into operation by the Authority immediately on a minor breach of contract on the part of a programme contractor, it might well prove that no reputable potential programme contractor would put himself in a position where he might be subject to such a penalty.
Whatever right hon. and hon. Members opposite may think about the Bill, I am sure they are in agreement that we want reputable programme contractors. We feel that unless we can retain the proviso, the prospects of securing reputable programme contractors will be decreased and diminished.

Mr. Mitchison: If there is a provision in the contract that it is not to be terminated under the Clause except on the third occasion, how is any court or arbitration tribunal to terminate it sooner?

The Solicitor-General: I am not suggesting that anyone would be quite so stupid as to put it in those terms.

Amendment negatived.

Amendment made: In page 11, line 17, at end, insert:
(7) The provisions of this section relating to breaches of contract on the part of programme contractors shall be without prejudice to any other remedies of the Authority for the enforcement of their rights in respect of contracts with programme contractors, and shall not, except as expressly provided therein, affect the jurisdiction of any court in respect of such contracts.—[Mr. Gammans.]

Clause 6.—(GOVERNMENT CONTROL OVER AUTHORITY AS TO CERTAIN MATTERS.)

Mr. Gammans: I beg to move, in page 11, line 23, to leave out "matter," and to insert "announcement."
I think it would be convenient for the House to consider at the same time the two following Amendments in my name.
The House will remember that the point was made in Committee that the Clause as at present drawn was wider than that which was used for the B.B.C.

Mr. Gordon Walker: We accept it.

Mr. Gammans: That is the justification for these Amendments.

Mr. J. Grimond: In the Committee stage, I moved that the first three subsections of this Clause should be omitted entirely, and I thank the Home Secretary and the Assistant Postmaster-General for, at least, making an improvement in subsection (1). "Announcement" limits to some extent, at any rate, the powers of the Government. I regret very much, however, that the Government have not seen fit to make any limitation of the powers that the Postmaster-General takes under subsection (2). Under subsection (2) the Postmaster-General may virtually order the authority to refrain from broadcasting
any matter or classes of matter … and it shall be the duty of the Authority to comply with the notice.
There are, I think, three possible types of matter which the Assistant Postmaster-General had in mind. The first might be matter which could be held to encourage people in this country to disorder. So far as that is concerned, we already have our criminal law. The second type is, I

think, matter relating to the foreign situation which the Foreign Secretary might object to having broadcast. But in this country we have so far got on very well with newspapers which are completely free to comment, without any interference, on any matter, whether related to foreign or home affairs. Lastly, I suppose the Assistant Postmaster-General could use the subsection to forbid the broadcasting of any obscene or undesirable matter by way of advertisement or otherwise. But here, too, as he has frequently pointed out, the Authority will be a highly reputable one, and I do not see why he needs that power.
While I welcome the Amendment. I regret that he has not seen fit to write into the Bill any more precise definition of the powers which he required in subsection (2). Since Whitsun I have been bringing my reading up to date. In the Committee stage I referred to Milton's "Areopagitica" and works by Mill and Laski. I have now had the advantage of reading "A restatement of liberty" by the right hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) who has taken a prominent part in the consideration of this Bill. It appears from this book that he at least takes a new view of the powers of the State in regard to propaganda, and he may well feel it his duty to encourage the propagation of various forms of opinion. I do not think that this is the proper moment to go into this point in detail, but I feel that there is a real danger—I do not wish to repeat what I said during the Committee stage—that this Clause may be used on future occasions by a Government to impress their own views, not only against—

Mr. Speaker: I have been trying to follow the hon. Gentleman's speech. It seems to me that he is going very wide of the Amendment.

Mr. Grimond: I have very nearly come to the end of my remarks, Mr. Speaker, and I hope that I may say that there is in my view a danger that the Clause, in spite of the Amendment which has been moved, might be used by a future Government to enable them to impress upon—

Mr. Speaker: We are discussing, not the Clause, but merely a proposed change of words.

Mr. Grimond: Confining myself to that, I would say that although the Government now intend to limit their powers to announcements, a great deal can be included in an announcement, and among what might be included is an announcement of Government policy which might be of a very disputable and highly contentious nature. I suggest to the Home Secretary in all seriousness that in time to come he may regret having written into the Bill powers quite so wide as this.
I welcome the Amendment but I urge upon the right hon. and learned Gentleman that when the occasion occurs, perhaps when the Bill goes to another place, he might look at the Clause again, and see whether he is really satisfied that he really requires the wide powers which are still retained, and whether this Amendment meets the point made and accepted by the right hon. and learned Gentleman on the Committee stage.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 11, line 24, after "images," insert:
of any picture, scene or object mentioned in the announcement.

In line 26, leave out "matter," and insert "announcement."—[Mr. Gammans.]

10.15 p.m.

Sir R. Grimston: I beg to move, in page 12, line 5, at the end, to insert:
(5) Where a notice under the last foregoing subsection requires the Authority—

(a) to establish or use any additional station; or
(b) to install or use any additional transmitting apparatus for the purposes of the transmission of an additional programme,
the Postmaster-General shall lay a copy of the notice before each House of Parliament.
The Amendment is self-explanatory, but briefly Clause 6 (4) gives the Postmaster-General powers to give directions to the Authority with regard to technical matters including the opening up of new stations. We think that where additional transmitting apparatus is ordered to be installed Parliament should be informed.

Mr. Gordon Walker: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. Shackleton: If the Assistant Postmaster-General is prepared to accept the Amendment—

Mr. Gammans: Yes. Sir, I am prepared to accept the Amendment. I am glad that my hon. Friend has not pressed his first Amendment. That would have meant laying before the House a whole mass of technical details which would have been inappropriate.
When this matter was raised in Committee I said that I would have another look at it with the object of laying before Parliament what should be laid before Parliament and, therefore, I am happy to accept the Amendment. [Interruption.]

Mr. Shackleton: The noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) always comes into the Chamber about this time of the night to make a few awkward interruptions. Last time the Guillotine neatly fell on him.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Which shows that the Guillotine is monstrous.

Mr. Shackleton: The noble Lord uses the word "monstrous," which is a very apt word, coming from him. I should like, however, to speak on the Amendment and to say that I am gratified that in this case, apparently, the Postmaster-General is not prepared to trust the I.T.A. Once again, this is an example of the "cox and box" and all the other tricks in which he indulges, depending on his mood and the need to conciliate his hon. Friends.
It is a most desirable thing that the type of powers—and very strong powers they are—to be exercised under this subsection, and the consequence of them, should be notified to Parliament so that we may have an opportunity to judge them. It would be helpful in fact if similar powers and the consequences of them were extended to various other parts of the Bill. But in this small part we are grateful that they exist. This Amendment, had it been put down from this side of the House in the first instance would undoubtedly have been refused.

Mr. Ness Edwards: We are only in this position in relation to this Amendment because, in the interests of debating more important matters, we have refrained from moving a substantial number of Amendments. Those who have spent less time in the Chamber behave as if they had spent the most time. I should have thought that if they had so much regard for this Bill they would have spent


more time on Report stage watching what was happening, instead of coming in at the last thing at night and behaving in the manner in which they are behaving.
We are very pleased that the Government propose to accept this Amendment. It was discussed in detail on Committee stage, but I wish to know in what form this is to be carried out. How will the copy be laid? Will it be a case of the ordinary practice of placing it in the Library? Will notice that it has been laid be on the Order Paper? I take it that when it is laid it will not be subject to the approval or disapproval of the House unless special action is taken. Will it be available in the Vote Office or will it be confined to the Library? Equally, we are entitled to know whether or not every allocation of a frequency will be notified to the House in the same way.
Reference was made from the back benches opposite to the amount of power with which transmission is undertaken. The question was asked whether it would be low-powered or high-powered transmission. Will that information be given? [Laughter.] Hon. Members may smile about this, but it is of great significance. If it is a low-powered transmission that is authorised, it will cover an extremely small area and in that sense one can have many more transmitters all over the country and provide for a great many more programme companies. If that development is to be on the horizontal basis the more low-powered transmissions that we have the more stations we can have and the more programme companies we can have, and to that extent we are breaking the monopoly to a far greater degree than if the transmission is at high power.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 12.—(ACCOUNTS AND AUDIT.)

Mr. Ernest Davies: I beg to move, in page 14, line 42, after "include," to insert:
a copy of any notice in writing given under section six of this Act (save in so far as the Postmaster-General may certify that it is not in the national interest to disclose the contents of any such notice) and.
The purpose of the Amendment is to ensure that when the annual report of the I.T.A. is published it shall include references to any directions which the Postmaster-General has given to the Authority during the period covered by

the report. As we know, this provision is included in all existing nationalisation Acts. It applies in the case of the National Coal Board, the British Transport Commission, the British Electricity Authority, the Gas Council, and so on. Where the Minister gives directions to those public corporations they have to include in their report a statement of those directions. We think that it is appropriate, therefore, that similar provisions should be made in the case of the I.T.A.
We quite understand that there may be occasions when it would not be in the national interest to disclose that a direction has been given. A direction might have been given in the interest of national security or for some similar purpose. In those cases we have provided that it is not obligatory upon the Minister to disclose the direction or upon the Authority to include it in its report. In view of the fact that the Assistant Postmaster-General has accepted the previous Amendment, I see no reason whatsoever why he cannot accept this one. Throughout our discussions in Committee and on Report stage, we on this side of the House have endeavoured to put the onus upon the Postmaster-General of answering to the House for the actions of the Authority.
Here is another instance of our trying to bring more public accountability into the Bill. If the Government would accept the Amendment, it would enable us to be aware of the directives given by the Postmaster-General from time to time and it would make it easier for us to ask Questions when we considered it necessary to do so.
During the debate today the Assistant Postmaster-General has made one or two concessions in which he has disclosed that it is necessary that the Authority should be under the control of the Minister responsible; that is to say, gradually more and more safeguards have been introduced by him into the Bill. In our view, not nearly enough safeguards have been introduced. However, the Assistant Postmaster-General has accepted the necessity for public accountability. The Amendment represents merely one further small step towards increasing the degree of public accountability of the Authority.

Mr. Shackleton: I beg to second the Amendment.
As the Government accepted the earlier Amendment, I hope that they will consider this very modest one a suitable one to accent to end the Report stage on the Clauses. Here is an opportunity for the Government to accept an Amendment which is even more important than the one moved by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) in which "than" was substituted for "as."
I hope that the Government, when considering this Amendment, will also give attention to a later Amendment of ours which we may not have time to move tonight but which is nonetheless of considerable importance. These Amendments refer to the type of information which should be given in the Annual Report to enable Parliament and the public at large to judge the activities and success of the great and wonderful new venture of the Assistant Postmaster-General. If we are to be able to make a judgment we must know how far the Authority has done what it has done off its own bat and how far it has done it under the skilled direction of the Post Office. We want to be able to award credit where a good job is done. When wise directions and wise advice are given, it will be easier for us to pay the kind of compliments under which the Assistant Postmaster-General thrives and develops.

Mr. H. Morrison: We have two minutes left. Why, on an Amendment

of this importance, do the Government sit like dummies saying nothing, doing nothing and waiting for the Guillotine to fall? They passed the Guillotine Motion and, having got it, they are now, it is clear, going to treat the House of Commons with contempt. That is exactly what I would expect from a Government which invents a Guillotine of this monstrous character in relation to a Bill which ought never to have been guillotined.

My hon. Friends have made a reasonable case for the Amendment. It is an Amendment of some importance. I have demonstrated that by the length of my own speech. The Government had some time in which they could have answered what my hon. Friends said. They have done nothing of the kind. They are just waiting for this brutal, horrible, ignorant Guillotine to come to their rescue because they prefer to govern not by reason, not by argument, not by consent but by this almost extra-Parliamentary method of having needless and purposeless guillotines. Therefore, I say that at this late hour we are entitled to protest against the conduct of the Government.

It being half-past Ten o'Clock, Mr. SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to Orders, to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 251: Noes, 263.

Division No. 166.]
AYES
[10.30 p.m.


Acland, Sir Richard
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)
Edelman, M.


Adams, Richard
Callaghan, L. J.
Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)


Albu, A. H.
Carmichael, J.
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Champion, A. J
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)


Awbery, S. S.
Chetwynd, G R.
Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Clunie, J.
Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)


Baird, J.
Coldrick, W.
Fernyhough, E.


Bartley, P.
Collick. P. H.
Fianburgh, W.


Benson, G.
Cove, W. G.
Finch, H. J.


Beswick, F.
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)


Bing, G. H. C.
Crosland, C. A. R.
Follick, M.


Blackburn, F.
Cullen, Mrs. A.
Foot, M. M.


Blenkinsop. A.
Daines, P.
Forman, J C.


Blyton, W. R.
Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)


Boardman, H.
Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)
Freeman, John (Watford)


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G
Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Gibson, C. W.


Bowden, H. W.
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Gooch, E. G


Bowen, E. R.
Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.


Bowles, F. G.
de Freitas, Geoffrey
Greenwood, Anthony


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Deer, G.
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)


Brookway, A. F.
Delargy, H. J.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)


Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Dodds, N. N.
Griffiths, William (Exchange)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Donnelly, D. L.
Grimond, J.


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Driberg, T. E. N.
Halo, Leslie


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)


Burke, W. A.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W)




Hamilton, W. W
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Skeffington, A. M.


Hannan, W.
Mason, Roy
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke-on-Trent)


Hargreaves, A.
Mayhew, G. P.
Slater, J. (Durham, Sedgefield)


Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)
Mellish, R. J.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Hastings, S.
Messer, Sir F.
Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)


Hay man, F. H.
Mikardo, Ian
Snow, J. W.


Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)
Mitchison, G. R.
Sorenson, R. W.


Henderson, Rt. Hon A (Rowley Regis)
Monslow, W.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Herbison, Miss M.
Moody, A. S.
Sparks, J. A.


Hewitson, Capt. M
Morgan, Dr. H. B. W
Steele, T.


Hobson, C. R.
Morley, R.
Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.


Holman, P.
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.


Holmes, Horace
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)
Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)


Holt, A. F.
Mort, D. L.
Stress, Dr. Barnett


Houghton, Douglas
Moyle, A.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Hoy, J. H.
Mulley, F. W.
Swingler, S. T.


Hubbard, T. F.
Nally, W.
Sylvester, G. O.


Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Oldfield, W. H.
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Oliver, G. H.
Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Orbach, M.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Hynd, J. B, (Attercliffe)
Oswald, T.
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)


Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Padley, W. E.
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)
Paget, R. T.
Thornton, E.


Isaacs, Rt, Hon, G. A.
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)
Timmons, J.


Janner, B.
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Tomney, F.


Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Palmer, A. M. F.
Turner-Samuels, M.


Jeger, George (Goole)
Panned, Charles
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Jeger, Mrs. Lena
Parglter, G. A.
Viant, S. P.


Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)
Parker, J.
Wade, D. W.


Johnson, James (Rugby)
Parkin, B. T
Wallace, H. W.


Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Paton, J.
Warbey, W. N.


Jones, Frederick Etwyn (West Ham, S.)
Pearson, A.
Watkins, T. E.


Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Peart, T. F.
Weitzman, D.


Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Plummer, Sir Leslie
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Keenan, W.
Porter, G.
Wells, William (Walsall)


Kenyan, C.
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
West, D. G.


Key, Rt. Hon. C. W
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)
Wheeldon, W. E.


King, Dr. H. M.
Proctor, W. T.
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Kinley, J.
Pryde, D. J.
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Lawson, G. M.
Pursey, Cmdr. H
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Rankin, John
Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B


Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Reeves, J.
Wilkins, W. A.


Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Reid, Thomas (Swindon)



Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Reid, William (Camlachie)
Willey, F. T.


Lewis, Arthur
Rhodes, H.
Williams, David (Neath)


Lindgren, G. S.
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)


Lipton, Lt.-Col. M
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)


Logan, D. G.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


MacColl, J. E.
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Willis, E. G.


McInnes, J.
Ross, William
Winterbollom, Richard (Brightside)


McLeavy, F.
Royle, C.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon A


McNeil, Rt. Hon. H
Shackleton, E. A. A.
Wyatt, W. L.


Mainwaring, W. H.
Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir Hartley
Yates, V. F.


Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Short, E. W.
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Silverman, Julius (Erdington)



Mann, Mrs. Jean
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Manuel, A. C.
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)
Mr. Popplewell and Mr. Rogers.




NOES


Aitken, W. T.
Braine, B. R.
Crockshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.


Alport, C. J. M.
Braithwaite, Sir Gurney
Crouch, R. F.


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)


Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.
Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)


Arbuthnot, John
Brooman-Whiie, R. C.
Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)
Browne, Jack (Govan)
Deedes, W. F.


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M
Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T
Digby, S. Wingfield


Baldwin, A. E.
Bullard, D. G.
Dodds-Parker, A. D.


Barlow, Sir John
Bullus, Wing Commander E. E
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.


Baxter, Sir Beverley
Burden, F. F. A.
Doughty, C. J. A.


Beach, Maj. Hicks
Campbell, Sir David
Drayson, G. B.


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Cary, Sir Robert
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. Sir T. (Richmond)


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Channon, H
Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Duthie, W. S.


Bennett, William (Woodside)
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)
Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir D. M.


Bevins, J. R. (Texteth)
Clyde, Rt. Hon. J. L.
Eden, Rt. Hon. A.


Birch, Nigel
Cole, Norman
Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)


Bishop, F. P.
Colegate, W A.
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.


Boothby, Sir R. J. G
Conant, Mai Sir Roger
Erroll, F. J.


Bossom, Sir A. C.
Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert
Finlay, Graeme


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A
Cooper-Key, E. M.
Fisher, Nigel


Boyle, Sir Edward
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.







Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Low, A. R. W.
Robertson, Sir David


Ford, Mrs. Patricia
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Robson-Brown, W.


Fort, R.
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)


Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Roper, Sir Harold


Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir Davit Maxwell
McAdden, S. J.
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Galbraith, Rt. Hon. T. D. (Pollok)
McCallum, Major D.
Russell, R. S.


Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.


Gammans, L. D.
Macdonald, Sir Peter
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.


Glover, D.
Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry
Scott, R. Donald


Godber, J. B.
McKibbin, A. J.
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.


Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)
Shepherd, William


Cough, C. H. F.
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Gower, H. R
Maclean, Fitzroy
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Graham, Sir Fargus
Maclead, Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)


Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)
Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)


Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Snadden, W. McN.


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Macpherson, (Dumfries)
Soames, Capt. C.


Hare, Hon. J. H.
Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Spearman, A. C. M


Harris, Frederic (Craydon, N)
Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)
Speir, R. M.


Harrison, Col. J. H (Eye)
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir Reginald
Spens, Rt. Hon. Sir P. (Kensington, S.)


Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield)
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E)
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Stevens, Geoffrey


Hay, John
Marples, A. E.
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)


Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Heath, Edward
Maude, Angus
Storey, S.


Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Maudling, R.
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)


Higgs, J. M. C.
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.
Summers, G. S.


Hilt, Dr. Charles (Luton)
Medlicott, Brig. F.
Sutcliffe, Sir Harold


Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Mellor, Sir John
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Hirst, Geoffrey
Molson, A. H. E.
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Holland-Martin, C. J.
Moore, Sir Thomas
Teeling, W.


Hollis, M. C.
Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)


Hope, Lord John
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Hopkinson, Rt. Hon. Henry
Nabarro, G. D. N.
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)


Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Neave, Airey
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Herobin, I. M.
Nicholls, Harmar
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)


Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)
Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.


Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)
Nield, Basil (Chester)
Tilney, John


Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Noble, Comdr, A. H. P.
Touche, Sir Gordon


Hulbert, Wing Cdr. N. J.
Nugent, G. R. H.
Turner, H. F. L.


Hurd, A. R.
Oakshott, H. D.
Turton, R. H.


Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'rgh, W.)
Odey, G. W.
Vane, W. M. F.


Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)
O'Neill, Hon. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.
Vosper, D. F.


Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.



Iremonger, T. L.
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Osborne, C.
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. Marylebone)


Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Page, R. G.
Walker-Smith, D. C.


Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.
Wall, Major Patrick


Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.
Perkins, Sir Robert
Ward Hon. George (Worcester)


Kaberry, D.
Pete, Brig. C. H. M.
Ward, Miss J. (Tynemouth)


Kerby, Capt. H. B
Peyton, J. W. W.
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C


Kerr, H. W.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Watkinson, H. A.


Lambert, Hon. G.
Pitman, I. J.
Webbe, Sir H. (London &amp; Westminster)


Lambton, Viscount
Pitt, Miss E. M.
Wellwood, W.


Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Powell, J. Enoch
Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)


Langford-Holt, J. A.
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Leather, E. H. C.
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.
Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)


Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Profumo, J. D.
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Raikes, Sir Victor
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Linstead, Sir H. N.
Rayner, Brig. R.
Wills, G.


Llewellyn, D. T.
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Remnant, Hon. P.
Wood, Hon. R.


Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Ronton, D. L. M.



Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.
Ridsdale, J. E.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES


Longden, Gilbert
Roberts, Peter (Heeley)
Sir Cedric Drewe and




Mr. Studholme.

Bill, as amended, to be further considered Tomorrow.

MARGARINE (STANDARDS)

10.40 p.m.

Mr. Frederick Willey: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Food Standards (Margarine) Order. 1954 (S.I., 1954, No. 613), dated 12th May, 1954, a copy of which was laid before, this House on 14th May, be annulled.
As far as I understand it—which is a necessarily cautionary premise—the purpose of this Order is desirable, and as we on this side always seek to meet the convenience of the House, may I say that I do not expect that my hon. and right hon. Friends will wish to call a Division unless it happens that the Parliamentary Secretary explains the Order in such a way that we find it does not meet the purpose as we understand it.
The purpose of the Order is to provide enforceable standards for the vitamisation of margarine. We support this Order, as far as we understand it, because its purpose, as we conceive it, is a desirable one. But, on the face of it—and I am sure that the Parliamentary Secretary will at once agree—this is a most remarkable Order. It is the first Statutory Instrument, I believe, which has been illustrated, and I think there ought to be some recognition of the artist. It is anonymous, and I do not know whether it is the work of the Parliamentary Secretary. I think that this is a welcome innovation which should be followed in other Orders.
The Second Schedule to the Order is, I think, the most amazing Schedule which has ever been attached to any Statutory Instrument. That is why I am very surprised that the hon. Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams) is not here. He has always proudly boasted that he has read all the Statutory Instruments, and since the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir J. Mellor) has become an Independent, the vigilance has become blunted. I should have thought that this was the sort of Order to which he would have thought it his duty to call the attention of the House.
Margarine is an alternative to butter, but it lacks Vitamins A and D, and the purpose of the Order is to see that these

nutrients are provided as they were before the war in domestic margarine at a higher standard than during the period of control. This is not only desirable, but is supported by the manufacturers themselves. The Food Standards Committee, which made the recommendation upon which this Order is based, said that there ought to be a master mix. Although I have read this Order, I cannot find anything about a master mix, and I would like to know why there is no reference to it, and, in fact, why there is no reference at all to enforceability as far as Vitamin A is concerned.

Mr. William Shepherd: Will the hon. Gentleman explain what "master mix" is, as we do not all know?

Mr. Willey: I will leave that to the Parliamentary Secretary. After all, we are now discussing this under the new procedure, and I do not want to trespass too much on his time. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) has spent a great deal of time in attempting to master this Order, and I want him to put his many points to the Parliamentary Secretary.
The second point is that there was a recommendation that the wrappers should indicate the vitamin content. It may be inappropriate to this Order, but the Parliamentary Secretary might deal with that when he replies. This amazing Schedule to the Order is intended, as far as I can understand it, to provide for an approved method of analysis. I shall only raise a few points about it, because I have not had the opportunity to devote the time and energy to this Order which my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West has been able to devote to it.
So far as I can see the procedure is rather conspiratorial. It is expressly laid down that the operation shall be carried out in subdued lighting conditions. Is this necessary? After all, this concerns the public analyst. The language does not seem to be very scientific. I notice, for instance, the instruction to
Transfer the ethereal solution in suitable aliquots quantitively ….
That seems to be a remarkable thing to do. Anyway, why not just say "transfer"? I only mention this as an illustration of the things which puzzle me about


the Schedule. Then, at the end, I see it is stated,
If this is not so the whole determination must be repeated.
If the person to whom the Second Schedule is directed is so minded, does he go on repeating until the margarine is exhausted? What is the purpose of such a direction?
I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will deal with the many points which I know that one of my hon. Friends is going to raise, and deal with them seriously. After all, this Order provides for prosecutions without the consent of the Minister. Yet the Minister has interfered. He has, in fact, sent out advice, or instructions, to local authorities that they must not prosecute because there is a lot of margarine about which does not conform to the Order. I think that is undesirable.
If the Order is capable of explanation, I think it is something which is desirable and is acceptable to manufacturers; but it ought not to be brought into effect while local authorities are not to prosecute for failure to comply with it. It would be dangerous to bring the Order into operation before stocks of margarine not conforming to its standards are exhausted.

10.49 p.m.

Mr. Leslie Hale: I bee to second the Motion.
I agree with the poet who said,
Life would be an easy matter
If we didn't have to eat.
If we never had to utter
Won't you pass the bread and butter;
Likewise, push along that platter
Full of meat.
But we do, and today it is an expensive occupation, particularly in the House of Commons. The Parliamentary Secretary will remember that another place has given us a warning, which I think he has in mind,
In these days of indigestion
It is oftentimes a question
As to what to eat and what to leave alone;
For each and every bacillus
Has a different way to kill us,
And in time they always claim us for their own.

So far as the Order is intended to improve margarine, I am in favour of it, because few of Her Majesty's subjects can afford to buy butter. Therefore it will undoubtedly perform a useful service. I do suggest, however, that it is unfortunate that a Statutory Instrument should have been written by a Beachcomber and illustrated by a Heath Robinson.
The Parliamentary Secretary will remember that Bertrand Russell in his "History of Western Philosophy" talked of the difficulty of approaching philosophic subjects in scientific language, and there seems to be something of the same difficulty in approaching legal subjects in scientific language. This Order, which introduces a new principle in law, means that manufacturers will have to go to a police court or a petty sessional court and say, "I have done all these things. I am an expert and I have applied all these tests, and I have now produced the right kind of vitamins. Having applied these tests in a whole variety of ways I still have not 940 International Units; indeed, I have less than 760." Then I bring an expert to say, "I stuck my thumb in it and it was really margarine." If I were the judge I should not know what to say. It seems to be a doubtful proposition, to say the least.
There is also some uncertainty about paragraph 2, which begins:
any reference to margarine shall be construed as including a reference to any food, whether mixed with butter or not, which resembles butter …
What is that? I should say it was soap. The Parliamentary Secretary would no doubt say that soap is not a food, but it is well within the knowledge of Members of this House that the type of cheese we are importing now is quite indistinguishable from soap, as regards texture, substance and taste. The only difference is one of price. It therefore seems that cheese would come within the purview of this Order, and probably would not react correctly to the tests.
As far as scientific matters are concerned, I speak with rather more reserve. The First Schedule provides that:
The vitamin A content shall be calculated as the sum of the vitamin A present as such or as its esters plus 0·8 times the beta-carotene equivalent of any carotenes present; any alpha-carotene being considered as equivalent in


potency to half its weight of beta-carotene; and when red palm oil …"—
which seems to be rather a hangover from the television debate—
is used as a source of carotenes, the beta-carotene equivalent shall be taken as 53·5 per cent. of the total carotenes …
Why it should be 53·5 per cent., I do not know. We are getting into some rather difficult mathematics on this question.
I would remind the Parliamentary Secretary that when we go to court we often say, "If the word is not in the Interpretation Act you have to look in the Oxford Dictionary." But the word "carotene" is not in the Oxford Dictionary; nor is it in the Encyclopædia Britannica. It is apparently something to do with chlorophyll. The best definition I have been able to obtain says that it is:
An orange-yellow pigment with a chemical formula C40H56. This compound is of considerable importance as it is the precursor of vitamin A, one molecule of Beta Carotene being split into two molecules of vitamin A by simple hydrolitic reaction.
The definition goes on to say that it is not only associated with the chlorophylls but may also occur in chloroplests. It may be that there is a possibility of a dispute with regard to the First Schedule.
I have no time to go fully into the Second Schedule, but there are one or two questions which really want answering. How does one boil a thing under reflux for 20 minutes—and what happens when one does? My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. F. Willey) asked why one has to transfer quantitatively when one is asked to do it in 40 ml. quantities, which seem to be quantitative anyhow. The next sentence contains the most surprising proposition. We have been dealing with ether and we are then told to transfer the ethereal solution—which I understood was either nectar or ambrosia, and certainly nothing to do with ether. This will present some confusion to any court which is called upon to adjudicate in the matter.
Carotene has to be eluted, and then we have to deal with the eluate, and we have to deal with it in a manner in which I. personally, should not like to deal with anything. I have tried to follow the instructions clearly. At one stage we have to extract the unsaponifiable matter, but no one tells us what to do

with it when it is extracted. We should be told that. I have not yet said a word about the illustration, which seems to have been taken from H. G. Wells's "War of the Worlds." I have not found out the difference between a pipette, a buvette, a burette, and a retort. No doubt we shall have the retort courteous from the Parliamentary Secretary. My difficulties are exaggerated by the fact that one of my school colleagues got mixed in his examination paper over brunette and burette and this did not endear him to the examiners.
But to return to the Order, I then find that the question of the esters is somewhat superficial. Esters constitute a matter of some complexity, for in relation to the vegetable oils we are told that they include glyceryl stearate, palmitate, oleate—which is an olefin acid—linoleate—a diolefin acid—linolenate, which is a trioefin acid, and ricinoleate a hydroxyolefin acid. All these are essential things in vegetable oils, and should be present in normal margarine; but what happens if we get abnormal margarine? If we try to deal with it as simply as possible, I think I should say before I conclude that I am reminded of Swin burne's "The Higher Pantheism"—
Doubt is faith in the main,
But faith on the whole is doubt
We cannot believe by proof;
But could we believe without.
For my part, I am still open to question, and I find that there is very real doubt about the concluding sentences of the Second Schedule:
The validity of the test is assessed from the optical density measurements at (λ max. minus 15 mμ.) and (λ max. plus 10 mλ.). The ratio of the optical density at each of these wavelengths to the optical density at λmax. (normally 324 mμ.) should fall within the range of 0·86 ± 0·02. If this is not so the whole determination must be repeated.
At that stage, at least, I think the whole thing is clear to us. If that happens, then the whole process is complete, and while one does not expect the scientist to jump from his bath crying "Eureka," he may be entitled to run three times round the lavatory shouting "It really is margarine." If this is not so, then the whole determination must be repeated; but I cannot understand why, if it does not happen once, it should be expected to happen a second time. For how long is the wretched man to go on repeating it? At


what stage in the proceedings is he entitled to conclude that it really is margarine?
In this supremely complex matter I would conclude by observing that the proposition starts off with vitamin A and vitamin D; but from a perusal of the Second Schedule it would seem that "D" is forgotten. I cannot there find out what it is, nor what test is applied to establish that it is present. At least I am glad that the whole matter is in such capable hands. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will tell the House in a few words how we, in our kitchens throughout the country, can find out from now on whether the margarine which we have there is good margarine or not.

11.0 p.m.

Colonel Alan Gomme-Duncan: The hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) has made the thing almost crystal clear, but I should like a little further explanation of the Order. This is the type of Order which, when I was in Opposition, which was not so very long ago, I delighted in deriding. In other words, it is completely inexplicable to the ordinary human being. There is an Explanatory Note, which, we are told, is not part of the Order, but is intended to "indicate its general purport." It consists of five lines of the document:
This Order, which should be read with the Food Standards (General Provisions) Order, 1944"—
with which, of course, we are all well acquainted—
as amended, prescribes a standard for margarine as respects vitamin A and vitamin D to be contained therein. The standard applies on sale by retail (as defined) only and applies alike to imported and home-produced margarine.
If we are to have Orders of this kind the Explanatory Notes should explain them. I cannot think this Explanatory Note explains this Order, which is, to me, completely inexplicable. It really says nothing at all. I am sure my hon. Friend will be able to explain the Order even more clearly than the hon. Member for Oldham, West, but all the same the Explanatory Note should explain what is contained in this complicated Order if only for the sake of those who have to operate it. For all the explaining this Note does it might have been left out.

Is it not possible to have Explanatory Notes to Orders such as this that truly explain them, or, better still, Orders in language ordinary people can understand?

11.2 p.m.

Captain J. A. L. Duncan: This Order is very funny, and the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) has extracted almost all the fun out of it. I have no objection to that, because I enjoyed listening to him. He missed one sentence, however, on page 4:
Make sure that no trace of alcohol remains, as otherwise the chromatogram will not develop properly.
In Northern Ireland and England proceedings for infringements of this Order can be brought without the consent of the Minister. What happens in Scotland? Are we to have no vitaminised margarine in Scotland? Or are we so well provided for in Scotland with highly vitaminised margarine that we do not have to take any steps to ensure we get it?
The Order is made under the emergency laws, but it is not stated at the head of the Order what law. The Order says:
The Minister of Food, in pursuance of the powers conferred upon him by Regulation two of the Defence Regulations …
Surely it ought to say under what Act this Order is being made? It is important that we should know under what Act it is made. I ask my hon. Friend, how long will the emergency last? It is 10 years or more since the original Regulations were made. Is the emergency still on? Are we to get rid of this amazing Order very soon? What is to happen? I do not think we ought to operate for ever under emergency laws even to preserve vitaminised margarine for our people. I hope my hon. Friend will give us satisfactory answers to both these questions.
The only other question I should like to ask is whether this will be understood by the ordinary sanitary inspector who. I suppose, will have to order the analysis. Public analysts I presume will understand, and may even have one of these astonishing machines with cotton wool stuffed in various parts, but the ordinary sanitary inspector will be completely in the dark about this extremely complicated apparatus, and the extremely complicated language in the Second Schedule


—in two if not three languages—ancient Greek, Latin and English. May I join in the appeal of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Colonel Gomme-Duncan) that, in the interests of the ordinary official of the local authority who has to operate this Order, at least the Schedule should be in language he can understand.

11.6 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Dr. Charles Hill): The mover of this Prayer will feel he has been justified, if only for the pleasure of hearing the scientific scrutiny of this Order by the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale). I agree that it does demand an explanation, and I am grateful in this respect to the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) for raising this question.
To deal first with the background, it is true, as the hon. Gentleman said, that this Order imposes a requirement under the only legal provision which exists at this moment for the purpose of the addition of vitamins A and D to margaine, roughly in the strength in which they are found in butter. The standard for vitamin D is higher than the standard which has hitherto obtained, and it is thought now that this is being put on this firm basis, and knowing that vitamin A is available in sufficient quantities, we should achieve the same standard for margarine in vitamins A and D as for butter.
The hon. Member did not attack the motives behind the Order. Before the war about three-quarters of the margarine was vitaminised and this probably represented all the margarine which went into domestic consumption. Here I am not certain whose advice to accept. The hon. Member for Sunderland, North asked me to take this seriously and the hon. Member for Oldham, West, by implication, suggested that there was a lighter approach to this problem. Vitamin A is found in butter, for example, as vitamin A. It is found in other foods and substances which come under the heading of carotene, a substance which to a large extent becomes vitamin A inside the human body. Therefore a not unimportant source of vitamin A is this group of substances known as carotene.
The hon. Gentleman asked me to explain the 53½ per cent. There are two kinds of carotene. One, carotene beta is rich in vitamin A. Indeed four-fifths of the beta-carotene can be taken as vitamin A. In the case of the other carotene, only half of it can be taken as vitamin A. It is when you are using red palm oil, and you know the amount of alpha and beta in it, and you apply the two proportions I have given—one half to the alpha-carotene, and four-fifths to the beta-carotene, that you come to the percentage of 53½.
Why the Second Schedule? I am going to take this seriously, for it is a most unusual step to include so much scientific material in an Order. I saw the name of the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) on the Order Paper. When I recall that he is, I believe, the Chairman of the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments, when I recall the power of that Committee to report to the House Orders that are unusual or difficult to elucidate, when I recall that, in fact, this Order was not so reported, I assume that, when he first read it, he understood it and it was only on second reading that he understood so little of it as to warrant attaching his name to the Motion on the Order Paper.
Hitherto the test that has been applied in estimating the amount of Vitamin A in margarine, as in every substance, has been the Carr-Price test, which has proved unreliable. It is a colour test. It is affected by substances other than Vitamin A and has been demonstrated by experiment—applying the same test to the same sample—to give different results.
Therefore, if one is making a requirement of a particular strength of Vitamin A, it is clearly desirable to make absolutely certain that the test that is used in its estimation is a reliable test, is one that yields satisfactory results, and one that will not lead to confusion, which would otherwise be caused as between analysts appearing for the prosecution and analysts for the defence, by the continued use of the Carr-Price test.
I ask the House to accept that this method of estimating Vitamin A is the only reliable method known today. Therefore, it is absolutely essential to make it known to those whose responsibility it is to add this vitamin, and


ensure use by the analysts of the one scientific method of estimation which is known to be reliable. What is more important, it should be known in those countries from which we import margarine, not only the percentage of vitamin addition which is required, but also the method by which it is assessed.
Having reached that position, we can ask ourselves whether the Order should contain the words in prescribing the test, "Such as the Government may determine" or refer to some other and more scientific publication. On balance, it was thought that, in this case, it would be wise to take the unusual step of embodying the details in a Schedule to the Order. It is not the first time that has been done. As the hon. Member for Sunderland, North will recall, a similar process was followed in the Milk, Special Designations, Pasteurised and Sterilised Milk Regulations, 1949. But he is right in saying it is the first time an illustration has been used.
Now, I hope, for some explanatory comments on the process used. It will be appreciated that this material is to be understood and used by public analysts. It is intended for them, and I think it is reasonable to assume that they understand language which is unintelligible to those who have not a similar scientific training. I do not pretend that the language here is easy to understand.
Let me describe the process very simply and, in so doing, answer the questions put by the hon. Member for Oldham, West. First, the margarine is saponified. That is the soap-making process. It is mixed with potassium hydroxide in order to separate off the materials that saponify, as the hon. Member so accurately said, the fatty acids which he named, and the materials which do not saponify, and they include vitamin A and carotene. So far so good. Having saponified, we then separate off—here I admit the ugliness of the word—the unsaponifiable material. Then we pass to the next phase of our process. There is a particular interest in this.

Mr. Gerald Nabarro: Wonderful stuff.

Dr. Hill: We have to separate off to measure accurately the vitamin A and the carotene. It is known that if one places

such a mixture in contact with alumina which has been prepared for the purpose, the alumina clings more vigorously to one than it does to the other.
Then to come to the eluate. Having treated this combined solution with the alumina, there comes the task of applying to the alumina a fluid—light petroleum in this case—which, as it washes through the alumina, removes first the carotene, the red material. The elimination of red material by this method is something which might be recommended to the party opposite. The carotene or red material is thus the first to be eliminated, and the eluate is the fluid that flows away.

Mr. Ivor Owen Thomas: Where are we now?

Dr. Hill: I cannot expect that everyone will understand it, but I am just responding to the questions which have been put. In other words, as one washes away these two substances from the alumina, one obtains two solutions, one containing vitamin A and the other the carotene.
The next task is, by examination of those fluids, to judge the strength of vitamin A and the strength of carotene, and that is done, as the hon. Gentleman so clearly demonstrated in his speech, by a spectral method, for each substance has its own capacity for occluding the spectrum.
I am not going into further details unless the hon. Member for Oldham, West, wishes me to.

Mr. Hale: It is very clear. I was only thinking that, on the whole, would it not be easier to reduce the price of butter?

Dr. Hill: The hon. Gentleman must not deter me from my final point, the point which he raised about what happens at the end. It is here possible by the application of a test to discover whether one's work has been well and truly done, and if at the end it is found not to have been well and truly done, then the advice offered here is the simple and old-fashioned advice of doing it again.
That is my modest and, I am afraid, inadequate explanation of the procedure followed. I cannot, perhaps, be expected to make it any clearer than I have done, but that, in short, is the process followed.
Why the sketch? The hon. Gentleman welcomed the sketch. The advice used to be given when I was a boy: Never make a drawing unless you are absolutely certain that your answer is right. In this case the sketch is needed for it is important to assemble the apparatus in this way and in these dimensions if the test is to be accurate.
Now, if I may turn to the specific questions of the hon. Member for Sunderland North, the master mix is a mixture of the two vitamins in oil in a concentrated form that can be added to the main mass of margarine. There is no legal power to require the use of a master mix. In the case of the wrapping requirement, it is inappropriate in this Order, I agree, and in any case manufacturers are now proceeding to do it voluntarily. The concealed lighting is necessary not for any dedicate purpose except that in these optical examinations it is easier to be more accurate in that light. Why there should be aliquots instead of portions I do not pretend to understand, except that there is an occasional preference in the scientific world for the complicated rather than the simple.
As for local authorities, I appreciate the strength of the hon. Gentleman's point. I would remind him that to make an Order on a certain day is to put oneself in the position that at that day there is on the shelves of the grocer a quantity of margarine made under the old standard and so, whenever one makes the Order one finds oneself in that position. That position was explained to local authorities. It was a short-lived position for a few days following the introduction of the Order, and has now disappeared.
I think I have answered the main questions asked on this scientific part by the hon. Member for Oldham, West. I do not know what it was that aroused the hon. Gentleman. I am sure it was not the use of the term "red palm oil" and any fear that there was any concealed suggestion of corruption. I am sure it was not the intention of "flat-bottom flask" that aroused any particular interest in him. The hon. Members for Oldham, West and Sunderland, North are both members of the legal profession. Perhaps an occasion will one day arise when one can scrutinise legal language in search of its meaning with the same searching precision as the hon. Gentleman has

examined this scientific test. For it is a scientific test, not for use by the ordinary public but for use by public analysts.
I agree that it was a matter of doubt whether it was wise to include it in the Order or not, but on balance I think it was, for that is one way of ensuring that the only reliable test is used, and so the various enforcement steps can, where necessary, be properly taken without the kind of disputation that would inevitably result by the use of any other scientific test for the purpose.

11.24 p.m.

Mr. I. Mikardo: I desire to ask a question which I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will seek an opportunity of answering, not on the scientific matter about which most of the debate has been so far, but on the much simpler text of the Order itself. I am puzzled by what appears to me to be an omission from the Order. It seems to me that there must have been in the original draft something which has since been left out.
First I call attention to paragraph 4 of the Order, which says that the standard prescribed shall apply only as respects sales by retail. It is quite clear that some sales would have to be excluded from the Order—for example, the sales of unprocessed margarine from one person to another for the purpose of processing. Nevertheless, the restriction to retail sale leaves open the question of margarine which is sold by wholesale for direct consumption. For example, I should imagine, though I do not pretend to know at first hand, that most large catering establishments buy margarine on a wholesale basis and then proceed to pass it over for the consumption of their customers in exactly the same way as it is consumed in the home.
I guess, and I shall adduce my evidence in a moment, that it was originally intended in the Order to make it apply to sales by retail and to sales by wholesale to catering establishments. If hon. Members will look at the first paragraph of paragraph (b) of Article 2 they will see there is a long definition of "catering business" and a shorter definition of "caterer." But "catering business does not appear anywhere in the Order.
May I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to tell the House, now that he is finished


with the science, and if he will get on to the law, why the definition Clause in the Order includes the definition of a term which is not contained in the Order? Is the answer that which quite ignorantly I am only guessing at, that originally there was an intention to make the provisions for sales to catering establishments, and that subsequently that was dropped out and it was forgotten to drop out the definition Clause? Or is there some other explanation?
I shall be glad, as I am sure the whole House will be glad, to hear from the Parliamentary Secretary on that matter. It is no use providing the protection to give a standard for margarine, and I am sure it is a good standard, to be eaten in our homes if we are to be fobbed off with rubbish each time we eat in a catering establishment.

Dr. Hill: If I thought as the hon. Gentleman does I should share his apprehension, but if he will examine the definition Article he will see in paragraph 2 (b) it states:
sale by retail" means a sale to a person otherwise than for the purpose of re-sale and includes a sale of margarine as such by a caterer in the course of his catering business.

Mr. Mikardo: The definition of a definition.

Dr. Hill: Occasionally a definition of a definition is unavoidable. I agree it might have been possible with other drafting to have compounded this and put it into a more complicated paragraph which might have had the effect of diverting the hon. Gentleman's attention.

Mr. Willey: I am sure, Mr. Speaker, you will agree it would be unfair to expect the House to come to any judgment on this matter without reading the speech of the Parliamentary Secretary. We are obliged to him for the explanation he has given. I am satisfied that the Order is seeking to pursue what I had hoped it would, and for that reason I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

DOMESTIC COAL PRICES

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Wills.]

11.29 p.m.

Mr. Ralph Morley: I apologise to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power for raising this matter at this late hour, but the question I wish to raise, that of the substantial differences in the price of coal between the North of England, the Midlands and the South of England, has been exercising the minds of my constituents for some considerable time. I have received resolutions from organisations in the constituency, and I promised that I would raise the matter at the earliest opportunity.
According to figures furnished to me by the Ministry, the price of domestic coal in Newcastle is 92s. 10d. a ton: in Nottingham it is 93s. 1d., in York 103s. 3d., in the Rhondda Valley 101s. 7d., but in Southampton it is 134s. 8d., in Brighton 134s. 6d. and in Plymouth 129s. 7d. Therefore, it can be seen that there is a difference of some £2 a ton in the cost of coal in the North of England, in the Midlands and in the South of England. The figures which I have quoted are the summer prices for coal. For the winter prices, of course, another 10s. a ton has to be added, and that brings the price of coal in Southampton up to £7 4s. 8d. a ton during the winter period.
There are a good many people who cannot take advantage of the summer price of coal. Old-age pensioners, for example, cannot take advantage of it because they can only afford to buy a cwt. of coal or so at a time. They cannot afford to buy a ton of coal at summer prices in order to lay up a stock for winter use. In addition, a good many other people have not the accommodation for storing a ton of coal. It is estimated that some 30 per cent. of the dwellings in this country have accommodation for less than half a ton of coal, so that for many people the winter prices are, in effect, the prices which they have to pay for coal.
At the present time, coal prices are undoubtedly extremely high in the South and South-West of England as compared with the North and the Midlands. The difference in price apparently, is not caused by the merchants' retail margin, that is to say, by the cost to the coal merchant of collecting the coal from the railway siding and distributing it to his customers. I assume that the retailers' gross margin is about the same in the North of England as in the Midlands and in the South of England, and cannot cause the variation in price as between the different regions.
In Southampton, the merchants' gross retail margin is 30s. 1d. per ton, in Plymouth 26s. 3d., and in Brighton 31s. It would be interesting to know why the merchants' retail margin is so much lower in Plymouth than in Southampton or Brighton. In all three places the profit per ton to the retailer is the same, 2s. 3d. per ton, and that cannot be said to be in any sense an excessive profit.
It is obvious that the difference in the cost of coal in the various regions is due practically entirely to transport charges. The transport charges of a ton of coal to Southampton are 40s. 10d., to Plymouth 42s. 7d., to Brighton 39s. 7d., and it is those charges which make the difference in the price of coal as between the various regions.
When the coal industry was privately owned and administered by a large number of private companies who were, to some extent, in competition with one another, and when the railways were privately owned, this difference in price as between one region and another might have been quite unavoidable. But surely the position is different now that the coal industry has been nationalised and is working as one unit very largely under a centralised direction, and now that the railways are under national ownership.
It should be possible, in the circumstances of today, to work out a plan by which the cost of coal can be equalised throughout the country. It is much easier to state the problem than to advance a solution, but I wish to make one or two suggestions to the Parliamentary Secretary. The best solution would be to average the price over the whole country: that is to say, to average the transport costs. That is done with regard to the cost of transport to many

national conferences. The cost of the tickets of the delegates is averaged. It is done for the Labour Party's national conference. If the conference is held at Scarborough, a delegate from Plymouth pays no more for his ticket than a delegate from York.
There are more consumers in the North than in the South of England. If under a scheme to average the price, consumers in the North were charged 15s. more a ton, the price to consumers in the South could be reduced by £1. The price in the two regions would then be approximately the same. That seems to me to be a sensible proposition now that the industry is nationalised. The Parliamentary Secretary may say that there are difficulties. He may say that by increasing the price to consumers in the North one will offend a larger number of voters. I would point out that the chief electoral stake of his party is in the south of England.
If that is not a feasible proposition I have another suggestion. We export 13 million tons of coal annually, and hope to increase the amount. The world's industrial production is increasing, and there is an ever-increasing demand in Europe for the coal we can export. If we increased the export price, I believe that we could sell just as much coal abroad. The yield from the increased price could be used to subsidise the long-distance transport of coal by railway to the South and South-West of England. An increase in the price of coal to industries and hotels and restaurants might also be considered. I understand that the cost of coal is not a very big item in the cost of most industries, except steel and cement, and the cost of coal could be raised without affecting greatly the final cost.
To do this would perhaps stimulate industry to use fuel-saving appliances. Again, the increased yield from the higher price could subsidise the long-distance transportation of coal. A long-term solution, which I commend to the Parliamentary Secretary as advice for the Minister of Transport, would be to reconstruct, and bring up to date, the country's canal system. At one time the country had a fine network of canals. That network has been allowed to fall into dis-use. Using modern machinery and methods, the canals could be reconstructed and modernised in a com-


paratively short time, and at no great cost. They could then be used for carrying coal, such transport being cheaper than carriage by railway.
If none of these solutions commends itself to the Parliamentary Secretary, I suggest two final possibilities. If he cannot do anything to average out the price of coal and so lower the price to domestic consumers in the South, he could at least supply free, to those consumers, fuel-saving appliances to use in their homes. If he did that they could get the same heat with 30 per cent. less coal, and so save 30 per cent, of the present cost. If he cannot even agree to that, I think it is incumbent upon the Ministry to supply to the old-age pensioners in the South of England a certain amount of coal at a reduced price for use in the winter. As it is, because of the present price of coal, the old-age pension is worth less in the South than it is in the Midlands and the North.
I hope that at least one hon. Member opposite will take part in this debate and support the general line which I have advanced, from examples from his own region. I want to give him time to do that and to allow the Parliamentary Secretary ample time to reply. I know that his reply will be courteous, because he is always courteous in debate, but on this occasion courtesy will not be enough. If he does not agree to any of my suggestions, I hope he will put forward some other concrete suggestion of his own to deal with this serious problem.

11.41 p.m.

Brigadier Christopher Peto: I am very grateful to the hon. Member for Itchen (Mr. Morley) for giving me the opportunity of joining in this debate. This is a subject in relation to which I have been dealing with the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary for nearly 18 months, making known the very strong feelings which exist at any rate in the South-West against the very high prices which the people there have to pay for their domestic coal.
The earliest letter which I want to quote, dealing with exactly the same point as that raised by the hon. Member for Itchen, was written by the South-West region on 1st April, 1953, in answer to a suggestion that there should be some

uniformity in the price of coal throughout the country or, failing that, some re-zoning, in order that there could be a fairer national average price, and an inquiry why these very high charges were made in the South-West—the difference between the pithead price and that paid by the consumers at that time being nearly £4 a ton. The reply from the Region states:
Concerning the uniformality of price throughout the country, the Minister has from time to time explained why this is not practicable with coal, but it is understood that the National Coal Board is not unmindful of the desirability of reducing the number of zones, thus creating a greater standardisation of prices over larger areas than at present.
It goes on to show how these high prices are arrived at. As the hon. Member for Itchen has said, it is purely due to the merchants' distribution margin, which, throughout Devon at that time, was standardised at £1 5s. 10d. a ton. This morning's price in my own home town of Bideford was 27s. 6d. a ton. Added to that are the importers' costs, which include sea freights, Discharging, and any rail transport costs from the port of arrival to the merchant, which were then standardised at £2 0s. 7d. a ton.
The reason why it is not even in the mind of the Minister to have a standard price throughout the country was given to me in a letter dated 12th May. 1953. It states that:
The consumers in and near the coalfields have always had relatively cheap coal because transport costs from the pits are low, and for these consumers the introduction of uniform prices would mean substantial increases. It is difficult to see how such increases could be justified on economic grounds; prices near the pits would be exceeding costs of supply so that consumers in distant areas might have coal at prices below the cost of supplying it. Uniform prices are attractive in theory, but there are sound practical and economic reasons why hey should not be applied to coal.
That, I submit, is no answer to the question. It does not satisfy those living in the South-Western region. There may perhaps be good economic reasons, but we want to know what they are, and we are not at all sure that it is not a political reason, rather than any other, which prevents the nationalised coal industry from having a nationalised price.
There is nothing novel in the idea. In the Post Office one pays the same


price whether one sends a parcel from Lands' End to John O'Groats or from one village to the next. We in the South-West do not see why, because we live where we do, we should not get some benefit from the nationalised industry whether we approve of it or not.
When one tries to complain or to criticise the nationalised coal industry it is rather like pushing at a feather bed—if I may liken my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to a feather bed. One cannot get an answer. My hon. Friend has been most patient with me for at least 15 months, ever since the Minister handed over this controversy for his attention. But I think he has failed to find a solution, and I should be grateful if he could, for example, make bigger zones and thereby average prices more evenly. That was a point which I raised in a debate on fuel and power in the House last October, but I never had a satisfactory answer on that occasion. Or. if we cannot have a standard price, could the Ministry not consider getting coal to the South-West by sea from, say, South Wales, instead of from Newcastle, or wherever it is that we get it at the moment. One other suggestion is that, in the new freight charges scheme, could not coal for the South-West be considered for some preferential treatment?

11.48 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power (Mr. L. W. Joynson-Hicks): Perhaps I should begin by saying that I know that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Devon, North (Brigadier Peto) appreciates that I am by profession a farmer; but I did not know that he had so closely joined forces with the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Stanley Evans) as to be able to say that I was so successful a farmer that I had some relation to a feather bed. I appreciate the compliment as a farmer if he is not complimentary to me as a representative of the Ministry of Fuel and Power.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Itchen (Mr. Morley) for having raised this subject in debate, because it is a very real problem. The basis of his argument was a comparison of what is claimed to be a high price for coal in the South as compared with the North. But I am not at all sure that those who live in the North would accept price as the sole

criterion. We have to consider the total cost for coal over the year, and in the North it may he that they have to pay more over the year because they burn more. It is a colder climate there, and it may be that the actual amount of money spent on coal in the North is not so disproportionate to that spent in the South.

Mr. Morley: Has the hon. Gentleman statistics to substantiate that?

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: I do not think it would be difficult to work out, as the maximum permitted quantity of coal for those living in the North is substantially more than that for those living in the South.
The figures the hon. Gentleman quoted are substantially accurate. I recognise them as figures I have given him in answers to Questions he has asked during the past few weeks. There may, since the answers he received, have been some minor variations of an upward character, and they may not, therefore, be entirely accurate, but they are accurate for the purpose of this discussion. The basic question is whether the rises to which he referred are the last rises that will take place, at any rate this year.
A tremendous amount depends upon whether or not the industry is successful in achieving the task it has set itself and which it considers reasonable for it to achieve this year, namely, an increase of 2½ per cent. in the amount of coal it produces. That will not only affect the question of stocks of British coal available next winter. It is also bound to have a substantial effect upon the budget which the National Coal Board is working on during the current year. If the budget should not prove to have been successful, one cannot say that the price of coal would not be affected.
The figures the hon. Gentleman has quoted are based entirely upon the price of Group 4 coal at Southampton. Group 4 coal is the average household quality of coal. Let us consider the prices of lower groups. They do not show such a gloomy picture as the hon. Gentleman has painted. The price of Group 5 coal at Southampton on 2nd May, before the last rises in price and the introduction of summer prices, was 135s. 8d. a ton, which is exactly the same price as it will be on 1st December next, when the


winter prices start. So there will be no rise in the price of that group of coal.
On the same basis the price of Group 6 coal on 1st December next will be exactly 3s. a ton cheaper than it was on 2nd May last at the end of the last winter prices and before the introduction of summer prices. Next winter's price of Group 7 coal on 1st December will be no less than 6s. a ton cheaper than it was on 2nd May. It will be cheaper by 2s. than it was on 1st January last. The hon. Gentleman's figures were quite fair, and I am not suggesting that they were not, but it is also reasonable to take into account that there is another side to the picture.
He asked me about the merchants' gross retail margins. They vary from place to place according to the expenses to which the merchants are put. And in the Midlands in the ordinary way where the depots are closer to the collieries, the costs are not so great and the margins are generally less. The answer to the hon. Member's question about Plymouth is that it is less there because there are no merchant's depot expenses at all as the trade is entirely sea-borne, and consequently depot expenses are eliminated with delivery direct to the customer.
The main question that has been raised, however, relates to the equalisation of transport charges, and the hon. Member for Itchen produced a delightful analogy of the Labour Party conferences. It is a happy thought, but coal weighs much more bulky than the Labour Party even when it comes together. But the fact remains that the person buying the coal pays the cost of the coal to him, and the hon. Member's suggestion boils down to someone else paying the cost of the coal for his constituents. He is prepared that they should pay part of it, but who is to meet this subsidy, because that is what it is. The hon. Member suggests that people in the North should help to pay. I am going up to Newcastle

in a few hours and, if he likes, I will ask them what they think of that suggestion. I feel they will not take kindly to it. He also suggested that industry could bear a share, but that is only going to raise costs and increase the price of industrial products.
The hon. Member also made an interesting suggestion about transport through the canals, and probably what he has in mind is the pumping of waterborne coal. Research is going on into that matter and perhaps in years to come such a possibility will become economic. But generally speaking the answer to this problem is that the Government are opposed to the introduction of additional subsidies in cases of this sort. In any event I rather fear—and I confess it with some shame—that I may have been out of order because such a proposal directing that the National Coal Board should exercise discrimination would require legislation.
Particularly in regard to the hon. Members' plea on behalf of the old-age pensioners, I would suggest that it is not a question of dealing with one item by itself. If one is going to subsidise one item for one particular class it is a matter which should not be done out of relation to other items and classes, and in any case it would be practically impossible to do it with coal because it is not allocated by individual registration but by the registration of householders and the old-age pensioner will not always be a householder. There is that practical difficulty, but I would commend the deferred payments system which might be of assistance to some of the hon. Member's constituents who can carry a stock of coal, or assistance by some voluntary organisation.

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'Clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at One Minute to Twelve o'Clock.